Ἂ 1c “ 


| ἶ a Bs Filion 


Ned 


Naturalization in Athenian Law 
and Practice 


Wu Py 


ive 


A DISSERTATION 
PRESENTED TO THE 


_ FACULTY OF PRINCETON UNIVERSITY 
IN CANDIDACY FOR THE DEGREE 
OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY 


BY 


ALBERT BILLHEIMER 


‘— 
g 


Tra aia ee 


Wear A040 aT Mar Se. 


ane EF 


Wey, 


EXCHANGE 


“ἢ 
οἵ 


av te fp 6 


7 
in 
ΓῚ 


| 
Mamet 


Ϊ -- = 
Gu GrerULUELEL κα CECE ED <<a all Beir a 


Naturalization 1 in ἘΞ baw 
and Practice 


A DISSERTATION 
PRESENTED TO THE 


FACULTY OF PRINCETON UNIVERSITY 
IN CANDIDACY FOR THE DEGREE 
OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY 


BY 


ALBERT. BILLHEIMER 


Δ; 


ae 


Z 


ae" 
LES 


γῇ 


a 


PREFACE 


During the years which have passed since I entered 
into the active enjoyment of teaching I have come to ap- 
preciate more and more deeply my indebtedness to all my 
teachers at Princeton. This indebtedness I wish to ac- 
knowledge gratefully. In connection with this disserta- 
tion my thanks are due especially to Professor Edward 
Capps for his constant inspiration and to Professor A. C. 
Johnson for his invaluable aid and thorough criticism. 
At the same time I reserve to myself the responsibility 
for all errors. 

ALBERT BILLHEIMER. 
Gettysburg, Pennsylvania 
August 23, 1922 


5ο90),79 


ὭΣ - 


oe 


ἐπ hax 


i σι 
vee 


may sinh rae we a 


sd ΡΣ 
| 


CONTENTS 


PAGE 
ΝΕ ΌΌΝΝΟΝ οι Pee Ge one eh eee γ 
CHAPTER I. QUALIFICATIONS FOR CITIZENSHIP... 9 


CHAPTER IJ. FORMULZ ΟΕ ATTIC DECREES OF > 
ΝΗΡ Be alec pe SA ee. 12 


CHAPTER III. REASONS FOR GRANTING CITIZENSHIP 24 
CHAPTER IV. PURPOSE OF THE GRANT OF CITIZEN- 


ERED τ AVE Se ie eeeabe wees % 87 
CHAPTER V. POETS OF FOREIGN NATIONALITY AT 
ATTIC FESTIVALS 22.6. ccecisees 102 
ION EPO CUS CCE EE τ, τς Pere PEM EET ES 109 
APPENDIX—LIST OF NATURALIZED ATHENIANS...... 110 
ERRATA 


Page 19, note 30: for 11 read 13. 
Page 25, note 6: for 22 read 24. 
Page 26, note 18: for 22 read 24. 
Page 31, note 42: for 27 read 29. 
Page 35, note 63: for 14 read 16. 


sae aiaik (πὰ αν GIL iS 
: sad Ἰὼ avlie oc oy bese 56 
ἐὐΠτ δὴν vions Gils CGNs, 
WAI Doliip g Sef (2 


ΤᾺ re G2 pS 


CONTENTS 


PAGE 
ΝΌΟΣ ΣΝ ρῶς STS Sas IA oe ee 7 
CHAPTER I. QUALIFICATIONS FOR CITIZENSHIP... 9 


CHAPTER’ II. FORMULZ OF ATTIC DECREES OF > 
CPPICUNBHIP ocak eee. 12 


CHAPTER III. REASONS FOR GRANTING CITIZENSHIP 24 
CHAPTER IV. PURPOSE OF THE GRANT OF CITIZEN- 


SO ee Ἐπ τ een Sn eng ere 87 
CHAPTER V. POETS OF FOREIGN NATIONALITY AT 

ἌΠΟ BRSTIVALS. ριον i v-che8s 102 
ΝΌΟΝ τ eee os SOE SEU eee Drie e. 109 


APPENDIX—LIST OF NATURALIZED ATHENIANS...... 110 


Vari ea Ih: 
τ ae a 


ΤΥ τα 


INTRODUCTION 


The laws which governed admission to the Athenian 
citizen-body on the basis of qualifications of birth have 
been discussed frequently, but the laws which regulated 
the admission of aliens have received only casual treat- 
ment.: This study was undertaken for the purpose of 
further investigating the reasons for which the Athe- 
nians granted citizenship to aliens. Its present form is 
due to a statement made by Szanto? that the Solonian 
law which provided for the admission of exiles and per- 
manent settlers was applied, at least to exiles, in De- 
mosthenes’ time. 

In the first chapter the history of the qualifications for 
citizenship on the basis of birth is considered. The 
second chapter deals with the various formulae found in 
decrees which grant citizenship to aliens. The third 
chapter is devoted to the discussion and application of the 
laws which state the reasons for which citizenship was 
granted to aliens. The pre-Solonian laws are considered 
first. The information here is scanty and our conclu- 
sions necessarily indefinite. Then the laws from the 
time of Solon to 100 B. C. are taken up and their respec- 
tive chronological limits are determined by the evidence 
of individual instances of grants of citizenship. In the 
light of the conclusions thus reached the possible reasons 
for grants to a special class of persons, i. e., to literary 
men, are discussed in order to learn their relation to the 
general law. In the fourth chapter we consider the pur- 
pose which actuated the state in granting citizenship 
upon the conditions stipulated in the general law, the 
effect of this policy upon the value of the grant, the de- 
gree to which the purpose of the state was realized, and 


1 <A. Westermann, De publicis Atheniensium honoribus ac prae- 
mis, 30-39; ἘΣ. Szanto, Untersuchungen iiber das attische Biirger- 
recht, 26-31; Das griechische Biirgerrecht, 46-50. 

2 Untersuch. uw. d. att. Biirgerr., 30. 


7 


« 
. e 
Se @ Cn Ory 


8 INTRODUCTION 


the effect of nominal citizenship upon its realization. In 
the fifth chapter evidence is presented on the question 
whether a poet of foreign nationality was permitted to 
compete at the Dionysiac festivals in Athens. The ap- 
pendix contains an alphabetical list of the names of 
naturalized Athenians, together with such facts as are 
pertinent to the time and reason of their naturalization. 
The list aims to be complete down to 100 B. Ὁ. 


CHAPTER I 
QUALIFICATIONS FOR CITIZENSHIP 


At the beginning of his discussion of the πόλις Aris- 
totle' raises the question, τίς 5 πολίτης ἐστι; giving as his 
reason, ἡ γὰρ πόλις πολιτῶν τι πλῆθός ἐστιν. Residence does 
not make a citizen, for metics and slaves also reside in the 
state; neither do the advantages of common jurisdiction, 
for these belong to the parties to a commercial treaty. 
But a citizen is characterized τῷ μετέχειν χρίσεως καὶ ἀρχῆς. 
Aristotle then quotes the popular definition which de- 
scribes a citizen as τὸν ἐξ ἀμφοτέρων πολιτῶν and makes the 
objection that this definition could not be applied to the 
first founders or inhabitants of states, and that it would 
cause great uncertainty in the case of those who were 
enfranchised after a change of government, as hap- 
pened at Athens under Clisthenes. The first definition 
involves merely an investigation of fact, namely, whether 
an individual is actually exercising certain functions; 
the second bases citizenship upon descent and involves a 
question of right, namely, whether an individual is quali- 
fied to exercise those functions. The one is theoretical 
(πρὸς τὴν γνῶσιν) ; it can be applied only to a citizen-body 
which is unchanging, or be used merely to determine who 
are exercising the functions of citizenship at any par- 
ticular time. The other is practical (πρὸς τὴν χρῆσιν), and 
must be used where the citizen-body is constantly chang- 
ing and receiving accessions, for the legislator must de- 
termine, not only who are citizens, but also who are 
qualified for admission to citizenship. 

In so far as the qualifications for Athenian citizenship 
were based upon birth, only children born in legitimate 
wedlock were eligible.2 However, the legal definition of 
legitimate wedlock differed at various periods of Athe- 


1 Pol. iii. 1275a 1. 
2 O. Miller, “Untersuch. zur Gesch. d. att. Biirger- und Ehe- 
rechts,” JCPh, Suppl. Bd. XXV (1899), 663-865. 
9 


Ὧ κκς 


10 QUALIFICATION FOR CITIZENSHIP 


nian history. These differences followed political 
changes. “Die oligarchische Partei ist geneigt, die 
Auslanderinnen zur Ehe zuzulassen, die Teilnahme am 
ἄρχειν aber auf eine geringe Zahl von “Biirgern” zu 
beschrinken. Die Demokratie gewadhrt méglichst volles 
Recht, beschrankt aber den Kreis der Biirger auf die 
Kinder von Biirger und Biirgerin.” The requirement 
that the father be an Athenian citizen was strictly ad- 
hered to, but the requirement concerning the nationality 
of the mother underwent changes. In the days of the 
aristocracy marriage was based upon class distinctions. 
The nobility married members of the nobility, whether 
Athenian or foreign; common people married free com- 
mon people, whether Athenian or foreign. In the time 
of Draco and of Solon the children of a union between an 
Athenian and an alien were not Athenian citizens. Solon 
believed in the principle, “Athens only for the Athe- 
nians.”?’> Damasias (ca. 582 B.C.) admitted the chil- 
dren of a citizen and an alien to citizenship in order to 
gain supporters for his tyranny. This situation con- 
tinued until the time of Isagoras (508/7 B.C.), who 
again restricted citizenship to the children of Athenian 
parents. Clisthenes again secured the admission of chil- 
dren of alien mothers as a reward for their support 
against his rival Isagoras. This regulation continued in 
force until the middle of the fifth century. In 451 B.C. 
citizenship was again limited to the children of Athenian 
parents, when on the motion of Pericles it was voted 
μὴ μετέχειν τῆς πόλεως ὃς ἂν μὴ ἐξ ἀμφοῖν ἀστοῖν ᾧἢ γεγονώς." 
In 445,4 B.C., upon the occasion of a distribution of 
grain, the law of Pericles was made retroactive.’ In 414 


8 A. Ledl (WSt, XXX [1909], 213 1.) opposes this view in the 
following words: “Somit hat seit den Tagen des griechischen 
Mittelalters bis zum Jahre 451 in Athen der Satz gegolten: die 
Ehe mit einer Auslinderin ist giiltig, die Kinder aus einer solchen 
Verbindung sind Ὑνήσιοι — seit dem Bestand des ἐγγύησις-(6- 
setzes natirlich nur unter der Voraussetzung, das die Ehe durch 
eyyunN eingegangen war.” 

Ae Saisie, Ath. Pol. 26. Cf, Plut. Per. 87; Aelian Var. hist. 
vi. 10. 


5 Plut. Per. 87; Schol. Aristoph. Vesp. 718. 


QUALIFICATION FOR CITIZENSHIP 11 


B.C. the sons of alien women were still excluded from 
citizenship,® but in 411/0 B.C. they were admitted.’ It 
was undoubtedly due to the terrible loss of life in the 
Sicilian disaster and the immediate necessity of increas- 
ing the number of citizens that the qualification of birth 
was relaxed at this time.’ At the close of the war in the 
archonship of Euclides a law was passed that ὃς ἂν μὴ ἐξ 
ἀστῆς γένηται νόθον sivar.® That this law might not be 
retroactive in its effect, it was amended so as to exempt 
from its provisions those who had exercised citizenship 
before Euclides.*° This law, according to which only 
children born in wedlock of an Athenian father and an 
Athenian mother could be admitted into citizenship, re- 
mained the qualification of birth for citizenship, at least 
until the year 328/7 B. C.™ 


6 Aristoph. Av. 1641 ff. 

7 [Plut.] Vita Antiph. ed. Westermann, 29. 

8 According to Miiller (loc. cit.) union with a foreign woman 
was permitted by law between 411 and 403 B.C., while Ledl (loc. 
cit.) believes that the violation of the Periclean law was winked at. 

9 Athen. xiii. 5776. 

10 Schol. Aeschines 1. 39. 

11 Aristot. Ath. Pol. 42. 


CHAPTER II 
FORMULAE OF ATTIC DECREES OF CITIZENSHIP 


Aliens could obtain Athenian citizenship by a grant of 
the people. The practice of admitting aliens can be 
traced back into very early times and was continued be- 
yond the year 100 B. C., the limit of this study. Athens 
became very liberal with her grants. As compared with 
her, Aegina, Megara, Sparta, and Oreus are said to have 
been much more conservative. When finally the Athe- 
nians sold the privilege of citizenship for money, Au- 
gustus put an end to this method of grant. 

The grant of the people took the form of a decree 
passed by the senate and the assembly. When the grant 
was made to an individual his name was given in the de- 
cree. The ethnicon was also given; in only three inscrip- 
tions is it certainly missing.2 The name of the father 
first appears in 331/0 Β. 0.3 That it is not found earlier 
in decrees of citizenship is perhaps due to chance, for it 
is given in other honorary decrees of a somewhat earlier 
date (before 357/6 B. C.), and there is no apparent rea- 
son for a difference in usage. After 331/0 B. C. both the 
father’s name and the ethnicon were regularly given. 
However, in only three of the inscriptions under con- 
sideration here are the name of the recipient, the name 
of the father, and the ethnicon placed in the clause which 
confers citizenship. A vote of thanks and a crown are 
nearly always conferred in connection with citizenship, 
and, as they precede the latter, they contain the name, 
father, and ethnicon of the recipient, unless these have 
been given already in the introductory clause of the de- 
cree. 

The motion to grant citizenship consisted of several 


1 Cassius Dio liv. 7: ἀπηγόρευσέ σφισι [᾿Αθηναίοις] μηδένα 
πολίτην ἀργυρίου ποιεῖσθαι (21 B.C.). 
2 IG, I, 59; 1’, 405, 666. 
3 1G, II’, 350; cf. II’, 886 (3834/3 B.C.). 
12 


FORMULAE OF ATTIC DECREES OF CITIZENSHIP 13 


parts, the grant proper and subsidiary motions indicating 
the various steps in the legal procedure, thus: (1) grant 
proper, (2) enrolment, (3) second vote, (4) judicial 
serutiny. JG, II?, 507 (3803/2 B.C.) gives the formula 
in full: (1) εἶναι [αΤύὐτὸν ᾿Αθηναῖον καὶ ἐγγόνους αὐτο[ῦ], 
(2) καὶ γράψασθαι ψυλῆς χαὶ δήμου χα[}] φρατρίας ἧς ἂν βούλητα!: 
χατὰ τὸν νόμον, (8) δοῦναι δὲ καὶ τὴν ψῆφον περὶ [α]ὐτοῦ τοὺς 
πρυτάνεις εἰς τὴν πρώτην ἐχχλησίαν, (4) nat τοὺς θεσμοθέτας 
[τ]οὺς ἐπὶ Νικοχλέους ἄρχοντος προ[γ]ρράψαι αὐτῷ τὴν δοκιμασίαν 
ἐν τῷ Μεταγειτνιῶνι μηνί. In considering these four parts 
of the motion to grant citizenship we shall take them in 
their natural order, grant proper, second vote, judicial 
scrutiny, and enrolment. 

Two forms of the formula of the grant proper are 
found in the inscriptions: 


Α. εἶναι αὐτὸν ᾿Αθηναῖον. 
Β. δίδοσθαι (δεδόσθαι) αὐτῷ τὴν πολιτείαν. 


A is the older form, appearing first in JG, II’, 1 (405/4 
B.C.). This is the regular form found in inscriptions 
earlier than 230 B.C. JG, 113, 851, in which formula B 
appears, should be dated before 224/3 B.C. according to 
Ferguson,‘ but Wilhelm® places the date after the middle 
of the second century. At all events formula A has given 
way to formula B in /G, IT*, 850, which belong's to the last 
years of the third century, and in JG, 112, 856, which is 
not much older than the second century.°® 

Against a decree of citizenship it was possible for any 
Athenian to introduce a γραφὴ παρανόμων. In the fourth 
century the process became still more strict in form. 
After the passage of the decree it was again voted upon 
by secret ballot in a subsequent assembly in which more 


Klio, VIII (1908), 339 f. 

MAI, XXXIX (1914), 300. 

Ibid., 298. 

Busolt, Miller, Hdb. d. kl. Altertumswiss., IV, 1, 1, 200. 


1D oe 


14 FORMULAE OF ATTIC DECREES OF CITIZENSHIP 


than six thousand citizens voted.* The first reference in 
inscriptions to the second assembly is found in JG, II?, 103 
(3869/8 B.C.). After the decree had been passed by both 
assemblies a γραφὴ παρανόμων might still be brought.® In 
the second half of the fourth century the optional γραφὴ 
παρανόμων was replaced by a regular judicial examination 
before the public court (δοκιμασία). This process had 
not yet been introduced at the time of the speech Against 
Neaera (ca. 840), but had come into use by 334/3 B. C.1% 
The formula as it first appears complete in JG, II’, 398 
(ca. 320/19 B.C.) runs as follows: [τοὺς θεσμοθέτας 
Sol κιμάσαι τὴν πο[λιτείαν ὅταν πρῶ]τον χρῶνται δι[ καστηρίοις]. 
The fact that the provisions for the second vote and the 
judicial scrutiny do not appear consistently in the decrees 
after the date of their introduction has caused some di- 
vergence of opinion regarding the periods of the exist- 
ence of those procedures. The clause providing for the 
second vote had been dropped by the end of the third cen- 
tury.’* According to Johnson’ the scrutiny before the 
public courts seems to have been abandoned about 332 
B.C., was required once in the years 321-319 B.C., and 
does not occur again until 303/2 B. C., when it was again 
introduced. The usage from 301 to 296 B.C. is un- 
known, but in 295/4 B.C. the regulation appears, and 
we may assume that its use was constant at least until 
the Nationalists were displaced by the pro-Macedonian 
party ca. 280 B.C.‘* The presence or absence of the 
formula points to the existence or non-existence of the 


8 [Dem.] 59. 89. 

9 Ibid. 

10 Szanto, Untersuch. ti. ἃ. att. Biirgerr., 19. 

11 JG, Il’, 336; Johnson, CPh, IX (1914), 440; AJA, XVIII 
(1914), 178; but see Wilhelm, op. cit., 266 on the uncertainty of 
the restoration. 

12 IG, II’, 850, 856; Wilhelm, op. cit., 300. 

138 AJA, XVIII (1914), 178 f. 

14 Johnson, CPh, IX (1914), 265 f. Tarn (JHSt, XL [1920], 
158) dates this change of government in 282/1 B.C. 


FORMULAE OF ATTIC DECREES OF CITIZENSHIP 15 


practice, and changes in the practice follow changes in 
the government.*® 

Having successfully passed the judicial examination 
new citizens were admitted into a tribe, deme, and phra- 
try. Until after 334/3 B.C. their choice was unre- 
stricted,’’ the Samians excepted, or freedom of choice 
was expressly granted by adding the clause, φυλὴν καὶ 
δῆμον xat φρατρίαν ἑλέσθαι ἥντιν᾽ ἂν βούλωνται. During the 
second half of the fourth century this freedom of enrol- 
ment was restricted and a limiting phrase or clause was 
added to the motion. The first datable example of such 
a restriction occurs in 331/0 B.C.,1° where the phrase 
χατὰ τὸν νόμον is used.2° “In the third century the varia- 
tions in the formulae and requirements of enrolment are - 
most complicated. For the most part they seem to fol- 
low political changes.’ 

As has been noted on page thirteen, the following was 
the original order in which the various parts of a motion 


15 Johnson, op. cit., 440. On the other hand Wilhelm (op. cit., 
283 f., 301) believes that the presence or absence of such subsidi- 
ary motions as those providing for a second vote and a scrutiny 
signifies nothing as to the actual existence or non-existence of 
those requirements. It was essential to record on the stone only 
the main motion, for that in itself set the legal machinery moving, 
and the motions which affected the details of the procedure of na- 
turalization followed automatically in an order arranged by law. 
“Mit vollem Recht,” he says (op. cit., 282), “hat sich aber auch W. 
Larfeld gegen die Versuche gewendet, aus der bald grésseren bald 
geringeren Vollstandigkeit der Formeln weitgehende Folgerungen 
auf Wandlungen der athenischen Gesetzgebung abzuleiten.” 

16 IG, II’, 336. 

a GST ETD. 

18 IG, Il’, 25. 

19 IG, IT’, 350. 

20 Johnson, op. cit., 424; AJA, XVIII (1914), 174 f. Wilhelm 
(WSt, XXIX [1907], 1) explains this restriction as follows: 
“Augenscheinlich soll verhiitet werden, dass der Biirger der Nach- 
barstadt ein Grundsttick erwirbt, das mit deren Gebiet ratimlich 
zusammenhangt und so nicht nur ein bedenklicher Stiitzpunkt 
fremder Macht im eigenen Lande, sondern auch Anlass einer Ver- 
schiebung der Grenze werden kann, ja eine solche in gewissem 
Sinne schon bedeutet.” 

21 Johnson, CPh, IX (1914), 440. 


16 FORMULAE OF ATTIC DECREES OF CITIZENSHIP 


to grant citizenship were stated: (1) grant proper, (2) 
enrolment, (3) second vote, (4) judicial scrutiny. By the 
end of the third century this order had been abandoned 
and in its place had been substituted the order in which 
the various parts of the motion would naturally follow 
one another in the execution of the whole motion, as fol- 
lows: (1) grant proper, to which is now and then added 
a provision for judicial scrutiny, or a general expression 
that the proceeding be conducted according to law, (2) 
judicial scrutiny, (3) enrolment. Thus /G, II’, 856 runs 
as follows: [δεδόσθαι δὲ αὐτῷ 1 nat morAttLetav δοχιμασθέντι χατὰ 
τὸν νό]μον, τοὺς δὲ θεσμ[οθέτας ὅταν πληρῶσι δικαστήρι7 α εἰς ἕνα 
χαὶ πενταχο[ σίους δικαστὰς συν ]͵νείμαντας εἰσαγαγεῖν αὐτῷ τὴν 
δοχιμασί7 αν xat δοῦναι περὶ αὐτοῦ τ ἣν ψῆφον, γράψασ]θαι δὲ αὐτὸν 
φυλῆς χαὶ δή[μου καὶ φρατρίας] ἧς ἂν βούληται. 

Having been admitted into the state the new citizen 
exercised all the rights and enjoyed all the privileges of 
native Athenians with a few exceptions. In the speech 
Against Neaera (92) the disabilities placed upon new 
citizens are mentioned: ‘The law expressly declares 
that, when citizens have been created by the people of 
Athens, they shall not be eligible to the offices of the nine 
archons, or to hold any priesthood; though their descend- 
ants are allowed by the people to share all civic rights 
with this condition, that their mothers must be women 
of Athenian birth and affianced according to law.” 


APPENDIX TO CHAPTER II 


There are two” inscriptions in which the formulae, as 
usually restored, do not conform to the above types. The 
first is JG, I, 59 (410/09 B. C.), the earliest extant decree 
of citizenship. The body of the decree is written στοιχηδόν 
with thirty-six letters to the line. Lines 15-17, which 
contain the formula, appear as follows: 
[TAMENAAAAKA@AITIEPTEIBOAEI] EINAIAE@PAZSY 

ἐν τε OE OR Ea AI®PATPIASHO 
eae oe Se ie eee ey NKAITAAAATAE 


22 IG, II’, 3366 is not an original grant, but a renewal. If /G, 
II’, 472+169 is correctly restored by Wilhelm (MAI, XXXIX 
[1914], 285 ff.), it may not be an original grant. 


FORMULAE OF ATTIC DECREES OF CITIZENSHIP 17 


The first five letters of line 16 should conclude the name 
Θρασύβολος, in whose honor the decree was passed. Either 
βολον or GoAo: must be supplied. Next, the word φρατρίας 
evidently concludes the regular phrase φυλῆς καὶ δήμου καὶ 
φρατρίας, which is common to all decrees of citizenship. 
‘This leaves six letters to be restored after the proper 
name. A comparison with the usage of this period sug- 
gests ᾿Αθηναῖος as the word to be supplied. Lines 15 and 
16 would then run as follows: 


[TAMENAAAAKAOATI EPTEIBOAEI] EINAIAE@PAZY 
[BOAONA@ENAION®Y AEXK AIAEMOK]AI®PATPIA 2HO 


Dittenberger”* thus restores it. But this restoration, 
while officially correct, is open to the obvious criticism 
of giving the line thirty-eight instead of thirty-six letters. 

To meet this difficulty Velsen and Kirchoff** suggest 
τὲ εἶνα!, reading as follows: 


[/TAMENAAAAKA®ATIEPTEIBOAEI] EINAIAEOPAZY 
[BOAOI®Y AESTEENAIKAIAEMOK] AI®PATPIAZHO 


But this formula is open to the criticism of being ano- 
malous and of giving thirty-seven letters to line 16 if we 
read EINAI instead of ENAI. 

There is yet another possibility, i. e., that the decree 
represents a confirmation of a previous grant, and not an 
original grant. Three choices are therefore open: to 
accept Dittenberger’s restoration involving a disregard 
of the στοιχηδόν arrangement, which is elsewhere in the 
decree uniformly followed ; to adopt some formula which, 
like Kirchoff’s, has no analogy; or to conclude that the de- 
cree represents the confirmation of a previous grant. 
The last view seems most reasonable, especially as the 
ethnicon and the phrase xai ἐχγόνους, which are regularly 


23 Ditt., Syll.*, 108. 
24 Monatsberichte der Academie, (1861), 1, 601 ff. 


18 FORMULAE OF ATTIC DECREES OF CITIZENSHIP 


present in decrees of citizenship, are missing. The whole 
passage might then be restored as follows: 


[TAMENAAAAKA®@A ITEPTEIBOAET]EI ΝΑΙ ΔΕΘΡΑΣΥ͂ 
[BOAONEKONTA®Y AE ZKATAEMOK] AIGPATPIASHO 
[NANBOAETAIBOZONTAA@ENAIO] NKAITAAAA TAE 


The restoration, jxovta,”> exactly fills the lacuna, as also 
does ὡς ὄντα ᾿Αθηναῖον in line 17.  Dittenberger’s ἀπογρα- 
φσάμενον in place of the latter has one letter too few for 
the lacuna. 

Having previously been made an Athenian, but having 
failed to come to Athens to be enrolled, provision is now 
made for his reception into the citizen-body. Reference 
is made to the previous decree in his honor in lines 17-18: 


KAITAAAATAE 
[S2SESISMENATOIAEMOIKYPIAE]NAIOPAZY BOAO” 


The other decree whose form is uncertain is JG, II’, 10. 
It was passed in 401/0 B. C.?" in honor of ὅσοι συνχατῆλθον 
ἀπὸ Φυλῆς. The inscription is written στοιχηδόν with pos- 
sibly eighty-five letters to the line. The honor conferred 
stood at the end of the fifth and in the first half of the 


25 In this inscription the aspirate is written at least twelve 
times and omitted at least three times. 

26 This view of the case differs from that of Valeton (Hermes, 
XLIII [1908], 481-99). He accepts Dittenberger’s restoration and 
makes this decree the original grant of citizenship. For other dis- 
cussions of the decree see Gilbert, Beitraige zur innern Geschichte 
Athens, 346 ff.; Szanto, Untersuch. ti. ἃ. att. Biirgerr., 13 ff.; 
Rohl, Hermes, XI (1876), 378 ff.; Foucart, BCH, XIIT (1889), 266; 
Hartel, “Beitrage zum attischen Staatsrecht und Urkundenwesen,” 
Sitzungsberichte der Akademie der Wissenschaften, XCII (1878), 
181 ff.; Wilhelm, Arch. Epigr. Mitt. aus Oesterreich, XVII (1894), 
37 ff.; H. Beurmann, JCPh, Suppl. Bd. X (1878-79), 350. 

27 Korte, MAI, XXV (1900), 392 ff. 


FORMULAE OF ATTIC DECREES OF CITIZENSHIP 19 


sixth line. Ziebarth’* restores it as follows: ἐψηφίσθαι" 
᾿Αθηναίοις εἶναι αὐτοῖς καὶ ἐχγόν[οιἰς αὐτῶν nat φυλῆς καὶ δήμου 
χαὶ φρατρίας ἧς ἂν βούλωνται]. The objection to this resto- 
ration is the fact that the use of εἶναι with the dative in 
this type of formula is anomalous. 

Recognizing the objection to Ziebarth’s restoration H. 
von Prott?® has suggested the following: ἐψηφίσθαι ᾿Αθηναί- 
οἷς εἶναι αὐτοῖς καὶ ἐχγόν[οις πολιτείαν Kal φυλῆς nat τοῦ δήμου 
χαὶ φρατρίας ἧς ἂν βούλωνται] However, this restoration 
does not better the case, for the use of the word πολιτεία 
in citizenship decrees does not occur until the second half 
of the third century.*° With regard to the restoration 
of IG, II?, 33 as a decree of citizenship by inserting the 
word πολιτεία Wilhelm*: remarks: “Gegen die Zuerken- 
nung des Biirgerrechtes liessen sich auch sonst Bedenken, 
zumal der Form wegen, geltend machen.” If the use of 
the word πολιτεία in this construction is anomalous for the 
period of this decree (ca. 385 B.C.), it would be much 
more so in the time of the decree under consideration 
(401/0 B.C.). 

Why is the effort so persistent to restore this inscrip- 
tion as a decree of citizenship when the evidence of the 
formula contradicts such an interpretation? First, 
many of the names inscribed upon the reverse side of 
the stone are foreign, and, says von Prott,*? ‘““Gemeint 
k6nnen damit nur Metoken sein und diesen Metoéken kann 
nur das Biirgerrecht verliehen worden sein. Denn die 
auf der Riickseite verzeichneten Manner—unzweifel- 
haft dieselben, von denen das Psephisma handelte—sind 
nach Phylen geordnet, also Biirger.’”** Second, there 
seems to be some connection between this document and 
the honors paid to the heroes of Phyle.** 


28 ΜΑΙ, XXIII (1898), 28. 

29 MAI, XXV (1900), 35; Ditt., Syll.*, 120. 

30 See p. 11. 

31 Er. Vin., 245. 

82 Op. cit., 38. 

33 Cf. Korte, op. cit., 393. 

34 <Aeschines 3. 187; Ziebarth, op. cit., 30 ff.; H. von Prott, 
op. cit., 36 ff.; S. B. Franklin, TrAPhA, XXXII (1901), 72 ff. 


20 FORMULAE OF ATTIC DECREES OF CITIZENSHIP 


These arguments prove nothing. In the first place, 
Aeschines makes no reference to any grant of citizenship 
in this connection, while the only reward promised by the 
democrats was ἰσοτέλεια. Xenophon®* says: πρὶν δὲ ἡμέρας 
δέχα γενέσθαι, πιστὰ δόντες, οἵτινες συμπολεμιήσειαν, χαὶ εἰ ξένοι 
εἶεν, ἰσοτέλειαν ἔσεσθαι, ἐξῇσαν πολλοὶ μὲν ὁπλῖται, πολλοὶ δὲ 
γυμνῆτες. In the second place, the arrangement of metics 
by tribes does not make the assumption of citizenship 
necessary. Indeed, if we were dealing with a group of 
newly-made citizens and the inscription were intended 
to indicate that fact, the arrangement should be, not by 
tribes, but by demes, for a citizen is officially designated 
as such by his deme-name. We have some information 
about the arrangement of names by tribes. From the 
earliest times the Athenians observed the custom of bury- 
ing the citizens who fell in battle in the public burying 
ground of the Ceramicus. Over the graves stelai were 
erected, bearing the names of the dead arranged by 
tribes. And it was only in the case of citizens who died 
in battle that names were inscribed in the official order 
of the tribes—so far as our information goes. This 
was due to the fact that the Athenian military organiza- 
tion was composed of tribal units. An Athenian army 
was but an aggregate of ten tribes of citizen soldiers. 
Even the ephebi were divided for mess into ten divisions 
according to tribes. The tribal arrangement has a mili- 
tary significance. If a decree were passed in honor of a 
large number of citizen soldiers, is it not possible that 
their names would be arranged according to the divisions 
of the organization in connection with which they were 
honored, i. e., by tribes? Now, metics formed part of 
the same military unit as the citizens and were likewise 
enrolled in the tribal contingents. The persons men- 
tioned in this inscription are apparently metics who 
shared in the military operations which followed the oc- 
cupation of Phyle.** There is, therefore, the possibility 
that this arrangement by tribes does not indicate a posi- 


385 Hell. ii, 4. 25. 
36 Clerc, Les Météques Atheniens, 429. 


FORMULAE OF ATTIC DECREES OF CITIZENSHIP 21 


tion in the citizen-body which was acquired by this de- 
eree, but rather indicates the military divisions in which 
they had rendered the services for which they are being 
honored. True, when named together with citizens in 
burial inscriptions metics are called ἔγγραφοι; the omis- 
sion of this designation might be due to the fact that only 
metics are mentioned. Lastly, the successful opposition 
to Thrasybulus’ motions to grant citizenship to Lysias and 
to all who had come along back from Piraeus indicates 
the existence of a strong conservative sentiment which 
should make us hesitate to ἩΜΡΕΡΥΟΣ this as a decree con- 
ferring citizenship.*’ | 


Several other inscriptions require special mention 
here because they have been called decrees of citizenship 
either incorrectly or without sufficient evidence. Ac- 
cording to Kirchner /G, II?, 706, 719, 720—all dated the 
beginning of the third century B. C.—are decrees of citi- 
zenship. With these compare /G, II?, 732 (dated the be- 
ginning of the third century B.C.), 801 (dated the mid- 
dle of the third century B. C.), 802 (dated after the mid- 
dle of the third century B.C.), 810 (dated about 280 
B.C.). It is clear that Kirchner is correct in not call- 
ing Nos. 732, 801, 802, 810 decrees of citizenship, but it 
is not clear why he does so designate Nos. 706, 719, 720, 
which are very similar to them. It may be due to the 
presence of the clause containing the instructions to the 
thesmothetae. Kirchner apparently believes that at the 
time Nos. 706, 719, 720 were written the scrutiny clause 
is found only in decrees of citizenship, while at the time 
of Nos. 732, 801, 802, 810 it may be found in connection 
with grants of either citizenship or ἔγχτησις. 

In the first place, Kirchner’s chronological arrangement 


87 Since the above was written three discussions of this in- 
scription have appeared: P. Cloché, La restauration démocratique 
a Athénes en 403 avant J.-C., 459-69; “Le décret de 401/0 en I’ hon- 
neur des météques revenus de Phylé,” REG, XXX (1917), 384- 
408; P. Foucart, “Un décret Athénien relatif aux combattants de 
Phyle,” Mém. de Τ᾿ Acad. Inscr. et Belles-Lettres, XLII, 323 ff. 
Cloché accepts the restoration πολιτείαν in 1. 5. I have not been 
. able to see Foucart’s article. 


22 FORMULAE OF ATTIC DECREES OF CITIZENSHIP 


is too uncertain to support such a conclusion. The date 
assigned by him to No. 706 is too early, for, according to 
Johnson,** “the value of the amount of property is never 
given before the last half of the [third] century.” Con- 
sequently No. 706 is to be dated in the last half of the 
third century, or about 232 B.C.,*® and, therefore, the 
scrutiny clause may apply to ἔγχτησις as well as to citi- 
zenship. Further, regardless of the exact date of No. 
706 the scrutiny clause may apply to ἔγχτησις, for ἔγχτησις 
is explicitly granted and the value of the amount of prop- 
erty is mentioned, and the clause of scrutiny in connection 
with ἔγχτησις appears first and regularly when the value 
of the amount of property is given. Finally, citizenship 
cannot be granted in No. 706. Citizenship and ἔγχτησις 
are not granted together in Athenian decrees because the 
right of ἔγχτησις is included in citizenship. “Dagegen™ 
gibt es kein Biirgerrechtsdiplom der reinen Form, d. h. 
ohne gleichzeitige Verleihung der Proxenie, welches die 
ἔγχτησις verliehe.”*? “30 hat man es in Athen verstanden, 
die Politie von der Proxenie rein zu erhalten.’’*! 

The only reason for mentioning ἔγχτησις in an Athenian 
decree of citizenship would be to limit, not to grant, the - 
right of ownership. Ferguson*? seems to refer to the 
existence of such a practice in these words: “A revi- 
sion of the laws was also made, and it appears that altera- 
tions were effected in the law of property by which the 
old prohibition against immigrants owning land within 
a certain distance of the frontier was extended, and a 
maximum was imposed upon the value of real estate 
which a naturalized foreigner might acquire in Attica. 
It differed in different cases, on what principle we can- © 
not ascertain. In one instance the amount fixed was two 
talents, in another one thousand drachmae only, and in 
still another three thousand drachmae for house and two 
talents for land. Conceivably the state granted simply 


88 Op. cit., 488. 

39 Ibid. 

40 Szanto, Griech. Biirgerr., 25. 
41 Ibid., 22. 

42 Hellen. Ath., 2465. 


FORMULAE OF ATTIC DECREES OF CITIZENSHIP 23 


the request which accompanied each petition for citizen- 
ship, and no longer gave carte blanche for future acqui- 
sitions.” Not one of the documents on which Ferguson 
seems to base this statement is a decree of citizenship; 
neither does there appear to be any decree of citizenship 
in which the right to own property is limited by the state- 
ment of a definite value. Therefore Ferguson’s expres- 
sion “naturalized foreigner” seems to be incorrectly used 
for “resident foreigner.’”’ Of course in the case of resi- 
dent foreigners a grant of ἔγχτησις about this time (232 
B. C.) was limited by a statement of the maximum value 
of the property which they might own or acquire. 

It seems possible that Nos. 719 and 720 also might be 
dated later. If so, they may, or may not, be decrees of 
citizenship. 


CHAPTER III 
REASONS FOR GRANTING CITIZENSHIP 


Szanto! cites three classes of foreigners upon whom 
citizenship could be conferred by law, i. e., exiles, perma- 
nent settlers, and benefactors of the state. The first two 
classes are mentioned in Plutarch’s Solon, 24: παρέχει δ᾽ 
ἀπορίαν χαὶ ὃ τῶν δημοποιήτων γόμος ὅτι γενέσθαι πολίτας οὐ 
δίδωσι πλὴν τοῖς φεύγουσιν ἀειφυγίᾳ τὴν ἑαυτῶν ἢ πανεστίοις 
᾿Αθήναζε μετοικιζομένοις ἐπὶ τέχνῃ. τοῦτο δὲ ποιῆσαί φασιν αὐτὸν 
οὐχ οὕτως ἀπελαύνοντα τοὺς ἄλλους ὡς χαταχαλούμενον ᾿Αθήναζε 
τούτους ἐπὶ βεβαίῳ τῷ μεθέξειν τῆς πολιτείας, καὶ ἅμα πιστοὺς 
γομίζοντα τοὺς μὲν ἀποβεβληχότας τὴν ἑαυτῶν διὰ τὴν ἀνάγχην, 
᾿ τοὺς δ᾽ ἀπολελοιπότας διὰ τὴν γνώμην. The third class is 
mentioned in the speech Against Neaera, 89: πρῶτον μὲν 
γὰρ νόμος ἐστὶ τῷ δήμῳ χείμενος, μὴ ἐξεῖναι ποιήσασθαι ᾿Αθηναῖον, 
ὃν ἂν μὴ δι᾽ ἀνδραγαθίαν εἰς τὸν δῆμον τὸν ᾿Αθηναίων ἄξιον ᾧ γενέ- 
σθαι πολίτην. | 

The periods during which these laws were in operation 
are given by Szanto® as follows: The law concerning 
exiles and permanent settlers appeared as part of the 
legislation of Solon and was in force, with regard to ex- 
iles at least, in Demosthenes’ time. The latter date is 
fixed by the fact that the law was applied in the case of 
Pytho in 360/59 B.C. The reference is as follows: 
Πύθων οὑτοσί, ὅτι μὲν Κότυν εὐθὺς ἀπεχτονὼς οὐκ ἀσφαλὲς ἡγεῖτ᾽ 
ἀπελθεῖν ὅποι τύχοι, ἦλθεν ὡς ὑμᾶς χαὶ πολιτείαν ἤτησε.. The 
law concerning benefactors of the state existed before 
Euclides, for the formula of motivation for the grant in 
IG, I, 59 shows that as early as 410/09 B.C. citizenship 
was granted δι᾽ ἀνδραγαθίαν περὶ τὸν δῆμον. Andocides® says 
that citizenship was granted to those οἱ ἂν ὑμᾶς [᾿Αθηναίους] 


1 Untersuch. wu. ἃ. att. Birgerr., 26-31. 
2 Cf. Andoc. 2. 28. 

3 Loc. cit. 

4 Dem. 28. 127. 

5 2. 28. 

24 


+ 


REASONS FOR GRANTING CITIZENSHIP 25 


φαίνωνται ποιοῦντές τι ἀγαθόν. That this law was in force in 
Demosthenes’ time is shown by the passage in the speech 
Against Neaera.® Szanto’s summary of the reasons for 
which the Athenians granted citizenship is incomplete 
and in some respects misleading. A new examination 
of the reasons for which citizenship was granted and 
their chronological limits is necessary. 


Pre-Solonian Period 


There are two passages which obviously refer to very 
early times. The scholium to Thucydides i. 2 states that 
ot ᾿Αθηναῖοι τὸ παλαιὸν εὐθὺς μετεδίδοσαν πολιτείας, ὕστερον δὲ 
"οὐχέτι. Suidas’ says: νόμος δ᾽ ἦν ᾿Αθήνησι ξένους εἰσδέχεσθαι 
τοὺς βουλομένους τῶν Ἑλλήνων. There is also a statement 
in the scholium to Aristophanes’ Ranae, 419 as follows: 
νόμος Yao ἦν τοὺς ἐξ ἀλλοδαπῆς ᾿Αθήνησι χκατοιχεῖν ἐθέλοντας εἰς ᾿ 
πολίτας ἐνταῦθα χρόνον ὀλίγον διατρίψαντας ἐγγράφεσθαι. Itis 
very doubtful whether this measure, which is characteriz- 
ed as a νόμος, not a ψήφισμα, was really in force in 405 B. C. 
The fact that metics, or permanent settlers, who enlisted 
in the Athenian navy before the battle of Arginusae in 
406 B. C. were admitted to citizenship® indicates that this 
law was not in operation at that time, for if it had been, 
then the honor accorded the meties would have lacked 
significance. This reference also appears to refer to an 
early practice. Thucydides® attributes Attica’s remark- 
able increase in population to the following reason: 
ἐχ γὰρ τῆς ἄλλης Ἑλλάδος οἱ πολέμῳ ἢ στάσει ἐκπίπτοντες παρ᾽ 
᾿Αθηναίους οἱ δυνατώτατοι ὡς βέβαιον ὃν ἀνεχώρουν, χαὶ πολῖται 
γιγνόμενοι εὐθὺς ἀπὸ παλαιοῦ μείζω ἔτι ἐποίησαν πλήθει ἀνθρώπων 
τὴν πόλιν. Theseus in his desire to enlarge the city is said 
to have invited foreigners to Athens.*° References are 
made to definite instances of the reception of foreigners. 


6 See p. 22. 

7 S.v. Περιθοῖδαι. 
8 Diodor. xiii. 97. 
1. 

10 Plut. Thes. 25. 


26 REASONS FOR GRANTING CITIZENSHIP 


The Thessalians, especially, were welcomed by Theseus." 
Philaeus and Eurysaces, sons of Ajax, on being made 
Athenian citizens gave the island of Salamis to the Athe- 
nians.'* Anaphlystus and Sphettus, the sons of Troezen, 
migrated to Attica and two demes were named after 
them.'* Pityreus, a descendant of Ion, surrendered Epi- 
dauria to the Argives and migrated to Athens.1* The 
descendants of Nestor having been expelled from Messe- 
nia went to Athens, where they gave their names to the 
houses of the Paeonids and Alemaeonids. Melanthus 
even became king of the Athenians.**° The Gephyraeans, 
who had come to Boeotia with Cadmus, were expelled by 
the, Boeotians. They went to Athens and received citi- 
zenship there.‘® Whatever may be the value of these ᾿ 
specific instances, they at least serve to indicate the char- 
acter of the general practice. The Athenians granted 
citizenship freely in early times. Although we cannot 
determine whether the grants were based upon any ex- 
act conditions, yet the statement of Thucydides’ leads to 
the inference that very many of the persons who received 
citizenship in early times were exiled Greeks who settled 
permanently at Athens. 

Solon’s law'* provided: for the granting of citincaalalll 
only. to exiles and permanent settlers. The law was re- 
strictive and narrowed the circle of eligible persons. The 
phrasing of the law shows this. First, the-statement of 
the law is negative, not positive, and thus implies a limi- 
tation of the preceding custom—yevécOa. πολίτας οὐ δίδωσι 
πλὴν τοῖς φεύγουσιν χτλ. Second, Plutarch adds this expla- 
nation to, his statement of the regulation: τοῦτο δὲ ποιῆσαί 
φασιν αὐτὸν οὐχ οὕτως ἀπελαύνοντα τοὺς ἄλλους ὡς χαταχαλούμενον 
᾿Αθήναζε τούτους ἐπὶ βεβαίῳ τῷ μεθέξειν τῆς πολιτείας, καὶ ἅμα 


11. Suid, loc. cit. 

12 Paus. 1. 35. 2. 

18 Paus. ii. 30. 9. 

14 Paus. ii. 26. 2. 

15 Paus. ii. 18. 7; Strabo ix. 1. 7. 

16 Her. v. 57; Westermann, op. cit., 30 f. 
4 Ae 2: 

18 See p. 22. 


REASONS FOR GRANTING CITIZENSHIP 27 


πιστοὺς νομίζοντα τοὺς μὲν ἀποβεβληχότας τὴν ἑαυτῶν διὰ THY 
ἀγνάγχην, τοὺς δ᾽ ἀπολελοιπότας διὰ τὴν γνώμην. The explana- 
tion that Solon did not intend to drive away the others 
implies that his regulation may have given that impres- 
sion. Such an effect could have been produced only by 
the restriction of a previously existing custom. The law 
which preceded the Solonian was, therefore, a more gen- 
eral one. The ineligible οἱ ἄλλοι of Solon’s law, who were 
neither exiles nor permanent settlers, had been eligible 
under the previous law. As has been seen, under the 
pre-Solonian laws of very early times others than exiles 
and permanent settlers were eligible. Consequently, in 
the absence of evidence to the contrary, we may assume 
that the practice of early times continued to be followed 
until the time of Solon. In introducing a restrictive 
qualification, which admitted to citizenship only those 
aliens who, either through necessity or choice, were un- 
attached to any country and who would, therefore, be- 
come adapted most quickly to Athenian institutions, 
Solon acted altogether in harmony with his policy of en- 
forcing, in the case of the natives themselves, the law 
requiring Athenian birth on both the father’s and the 
mother’s side. 


Post-Solonian Period 


The law which was introduced by Solon has already 
been discussed.'® There are also the following references 
to. another law: (1) xat γάρ to: tote (ca. 479 and 476 B. C.) 
μὲν οὕτω τίμιον ἦν πᾶσιν ἀνθρώποις τὸ γενέσθαι πολίταις παρ᾽ ὑμῖν 
ὥσθ᾽ ὑπὲρ τοῦ τυχεῖν τούτου τηλικαῦθ᾽ ὑμᾶς ἀγάθ᾽ ἤθελον ποιεῖν ;29 
(2) ὁρῶ δὲ ὑμᾶς πολλάκις χαὶ δούλοις ἀνθρώποις καὶ ξένοις παντο- 
δαποῖς πολιτείαν τε διδόντας χαὶ εἰς χρήματα μεγάλας δωρειάς, οἱ 
ἂν ὑμᾶς φαίνωνται ποιοῦντές τι ἀγαθόν :2:. (8) καὶ Θεοδέχτης ἐν τῷ 
νόμῳ (after 368 B.C.) ὅτι πολίτας μὲν ποιεῖσθε τοὺς μισθοφό- 
ρους, οἷον Στράβαχα καὶ Χαρίδημον, διὰ τὴν ἐπιείκειαν :253 (4) πρῶ- 
TOV μὲν γὰρ νόμος ἐστὶ τῷ δήμῳ κείμενος, μὴ ἐξεῖναι ποιήσασθαι 


19 See p. 26. 

20 Dem, 28. 200. 

21 Andoc. 2. 23 (410 B. C.). 
22 Aristot. Rhet. 13996 2. 


28 REASONS FOR GRANTING CITIZENSHIP 


᾿Αθηναῖον ὃν ἂν μὴ δι᾽ ἀνδραγαθίαν εἰς τὸν δήμον τὸν ᾿Αθηναίων 
ἄξιον ἢ γενέσθαι πολίτην ; 28 (5) τιμήσαντος αὐτὸν τοῦ δήμου τοῦ 
᾿Αθηναίων πολιτείᾳ χαὶ ταῖς ἄλλαις τιμαῖς αἷς προσήχει τοὺς 
εὐεργέτας xat αὐτὸν χαὶ ἐγγόνους διά τε τὴν αὐτοῦ ἀρετὴν χαὶ διὰ 
τὰς τῶν προγόνων εὐεργεσίας. The preceding references 
show that after the time of Solon various laws existed, 
by which citizenship was granted for three reasons, i. e., 
exile, permanent settlement to practice a trade, and 
ἀνδραγαθία εἰς τὸν δῆμον. 

We shall next proceed to determine, as closely as pos- 
sible, the chronological limits of these laws, using for this 
purpose all the evidence found in decrees of citizenship 
and in literary references to individual grants. 

In the first place evidence of a general character is fur- 
nished by the formulae of motivation in decrees of citi- 
zenship. These formulae contain references in general, 
as well as in specific, terms to the reasons for the admis- 
sion of the new citizens. An examination of the general 
expressions of motivation found in decrees of citizenship 
from the earliest to 100 B.C. makes clear the general 
character of the reasons for which citizenship was 
granted during this period, for, while these formulae 
vary in phraseology, all the decrees which contain a gen- 
eral motivation give as the reason for the grant the fact 
that the individual honored has manifested toward the 
state a quality which is variously designated as ἀρετή, 
εὔνοια, φιλοτιμία, φιλία, and ἀνδραγαθία. As these words 
appear to be used with no distinction of meaning, it fol- 
lows that all the extant decrees of citizenship from the 
earliest (410/09 B.C.) to 100 B.C., in which a general 
reason is given, fall under the law of a8payabia.”® 


23 [Dem.] 59. 89 (340 B. C.). 

24 IG, II’, 448, ll. 56-60 (318/7 B. C.). Cf. IG, II’, 653 (287/6 
B. C.). 

25 The statement of the reason is not found, as a rule, in the 
clause which confers citizenship, yet it modifies it. Other honors, 
such as a vote of thanks or a crown, are generally granted to- 
gether with citizenship and precede it in the statement of the mo- 
tions; indeed the grant of citizenship is often contained in an 
amendment. As the reason is the same for all the honors con- 
ferred, it is stated either in the preamble to the motion or in the 
early part of the motion. 


REASONS FOR GRANTING CITIZENSHIP 29 


In many of the decrees the clause, ὡς πρόθυμός ἐστι ποιεῖν 
6 τι δύναται ἀγαθόν, is used synonymously with the clause, 
ὡς ἀγαθός ἐστι ἀνήρ, and in IG, II’, 448 ἀρετή is synonymous 
with εὐεργεσία. So ἀνδραγαθία πρὸς τὸν δῆμον was more than 
mere sentiment; it was manifested by an act of public 
service. We shall now examine all the specific reasons 
which are given in either inscriptional or literary sources 
for grants of citizenship from the earliest times to 100 
B. C., in order to determine whether these reasons are 
εὐεργεσίαι πρὸς τὸν δῆμον and whether or not they should be 
classed under the law of ἀνδραγαθία. 

PLATAEANS. Toward the end of the sixth century 
B.C. the Plataeans, who were suffering at the hands of 
the Thebans, appealed for aid to Cleomenes and the Lace- 
daemonians, who happened to be in the neighborhood. 
Cleomenes refused aid and counseled them to turn to the 
Athenians. This the Plataeans did, and thus _ their 
friendship with Athens was established.?° At the same 
time that the Athenians made the alliance with the Pla- 
taeans they granted them citizenship: (1) xat γὰρ ἐχεῖνοι 
[’A@nvator] ἐβοήθουν ἡμῖν [Πλ’λαταιεῦσιν] ἐναντία Θηβαίοις ὅτε 
ὑμεῖς [Λαχεδαιμόνιοι] ἀπωχνεῖτε, χαὶ προδοῦναι αὐτοὺς οὐχέτι ἦν 
χαλόν, ἄλλως τε χαὶ OVE εὖ παθῶν τις [ἡμεῖς] καὶ αὐτὸς δεόμενος 
προσηγάγετο ξυμμάχους xat πολιτείας μετέλαβεν :27 (2) ἐγένεσθε 
[Πλαταιῆς] ἐπὶ τῇ ἡμετέρᾳ τιμωρίᾳ, ὡς φατέ, ᾿Αθηναίων ξύμμα- 
yor χαὶ πολῖται. 5 The date of this grant of citizenship was 
519 B. C. according to Thucydides?® and Meyer,*®® or 509 
Β. Ὁ. according to Grote*®! and Macan.* 

PERDICCAS. Perdiccas, king(?) of Macedonia, was 
granted citizenship about 479 B.C. The grant and the 
reason for it are stated in Dem. 23. 200: καὶ πάλιν Περ- 
δίχχᾳ τῷ χατὰ τὴν τοῦ βαρβάρου ποτ᾽ ἐπιστρατείαν βασιλεύοντ! 
Μαχεδονίας, τοὺς ἀναχωροῦντας éx Πλαταιῶν τῶν βαρβάρων δια- 


26 Her. vi. 108; Thuc. iii. 55. 

27 Thue. iii. 55. 

28 Ibid., 63. 

29 Ibid., 58. 

30 Gesch. d. Alterth., II, Ὁ. 780, sec. 478, n. 
31 History of Greece (1869), IV, 94, n. 1. 
32 Macan, Herodotus vi. 108, τ. 


30 REASONS FOR GRANTING CITIZENSHIP 


φθείραντι nal τέλειον τἀτύχημα πονήσαντι τῷ βασιλεῖ, οὐχ ἐψηφίσαντ᾽ 
ἀγώγιμον, ἄν τις ἀποχτείνῃ Ilepdinnav, ᾧ βασιλεὺς 6 Περσῶν 
ἐχθρὸς δι᾿ ἡμᾶς ἀπεδέδεικτο, ἀλλὰ πολιτείαν ἔδωχαν μόνον. In 
another passage** the statement is made that Perdiccas 
was granted ἀτέλεια only. Because of this discrepancy 
and the fact that Alexander (498-454 B.C.), and not his 
son Perdiccas, was the king of Macedonia at the time of 
these events, the view is held that the names of Alexander 
and Perdiccas have been interchanged in this passage 
and that the reference to a grant of citizenship is an error 
on the part of Demosthenes.** However, F. A. Wolf*® 
accepts the reading πολιτείαν on the ground that the speech 
De re publica ordinanda is not genuine.*® And the view 
is held that the Perdiccas referred to may have been a 
Macedonian prince, vassal of King Alexander.** There- 
fore, although the identity of Perdiccas cannot be deter- 
mined, the arguments against a grant of citizenship are 
not sufficient to reject it. 

MENON. Menon of Pharsalus in Thessaly was 
granted citizenship about 476 B.C.** The grant and the 
reason for it are stated in Dem. 23. 199: ἐχεῖνοι [᾿Αθηναῖοι] 
Μένωνι τῷ Φαρσαλίῳ, δώδεχα μὲν τάλαντ᾽ ἀργυρίου δόντι πρὸς τὸν 
ex Ἢιόνι τῇ πρὸς ᾿Αμφικόλει πόλεμον, τριακοσίοις δ᾽ ἱππεῦσι 
πενέσταις ἰδίοις βοηθήσαντι, οὐκ ἐψηφίσαντ᾽, αὐτὸν ἄν τις ἀποχτείνῃ, 
ἀγώγιμον εἶναι, ἀλλὰ πολιτείαν ἔδοσαν χαὶ ταύτην ἱχανὴν ὑπελάμ- 
βανον εἶναι τὴν τιμήν. The services here mentioned were 
rendered in connection with the siege and capture of Eion 
on the Strymon.*® This enterprise was the first military 
success of the Confederacy of Delos and it filled the Athe- 
nians with a justifiable feeling of self-confidence.** Hero- 
dotus*' describes the brave defense made by the Persian 


33 [Dem.] 18. 24. 

34 Pauly-Wiss., I, 2, 1411, s. v. Alexandros. 

35 Proleg. ad Lept., p. lxxiv, n. 51. 

36 Cf. Westermann, op. cit., 36, n. 26. 

37 H. Weil, Les Harangues de Démosthéne, 4538, ad 11. 11 f. 
88 Beloch, Griech. Gesch.’, II, 1, 65. 

39 Weissenborn, Hellenica, 141, n. 22. 

40 Beloch, loc. cit.; Thuc. i. 98; Plut. Cim. 7. 

41 vii. 107. 


REASONS FOR GRANTING CITIZENSHIP 31 


commandant Boges and his final tragic self-destruction.*” 
POLYGNOTUS. “It has been conjectured with great 
probability that during his campaigns on the coast of 
Asia Minor Cimon had fallen under the influence of Ion- 
ian culture and artistic tendencies; and that when he had 
an opportunity for beautifying Athens with new build- 
ings, he summoned artists from Ionia to his assistance— 
chief among them the painter Polygnotus.’** If the 
opinion of Miiller** is correct that the time of the arrival 
of Polygnotus at Athens is connected with the reduction 
of his native island Thasos, then he came to Athens in 
463 B.C. After that he executed paintings in various 
public buildings which are assigned to Cimon. Because 
he did this work gratuitously Polygnotus was made an 
Athenian citizen: ἤτοι ἐπεὶ τὴν ΠΙοιχίλην στοὰν ἔγραψε προῖχα, 
Hh ὡς ἕτεροι, τὰς ἐν τῷ Θησείῳ nal τῷ ἀναχείῳ γραφάς, ἱστορήκα- 
σιν ἄλλοι τε καὶ ᾿Αρτέμων ἐν τῷ περὶ ζωγράφων nat Ἰόβας ἐν τοῖς 
περὶ γῥαφιλῆς. As Cimon was ostracized in 461 B.C., 
the grant should be placed between 463 and 461 B. C. 
CARYSTION. In 440 B.C. war broke out between 
the Samians and the Milesians over the possession of 
Priene. When the Samians proved victorious, the Mile- 
Ssians appealed to Athens to settle the case by arbitration. 
However, the Samians refused to comply with the award ; 
so the Athenians sent an expedition to the island, estab- 
lished a democratic government, and left a garrison. 
Then some of the Samians, who had fled to the mainland 
and had applied to the Persians for aid, crossed with 
seven hundred mercenaries to Samos by night, overthrew 
the Samian democracy and the Athenian garrison, and 
proclaimed open revolt against Athens. The Athenians 
immediately despatched a fleet to put down the revolt. 
As a Phoenician fleet was expected to come to the assist- 


42 Menon’s services are referred to in another passage 
([Dem.] 18. 23), where the statement is made that he was re- 
warded with ἀτέλεια, not πολιτεία. For an explanation of this 
discrepancy see the case of Perdiccas on p. 27. 

43 Gardner, Ancient Athens, 383 f. 

44 De Phidiae vita, 7. : 

45 Harpoe. s. v. Πολύγνωτος. Cf. Suid. 8. ». Πολύγνωτος. 


32 REASONS FOR GRANTING CITIZENSHIP 


ance of the Samians, Pericles sent part of his fleet to keep 
watch off the coast of Caria, while with the remaining 
forty-four ships he attacked and defeated the Samian 
fleet of seventy ships. He then blocked up the harbor 
and invested the city. Again, when apparently accurate 
news of the approach of the Phoenician fleet was received, 
Pericles sent half of his force to intercept it. The Phoe- 
nicians never appeared, but, while the Athenian fleet 
was thus-divided, the Samians sailed out of the harbor 
and defeated the blockading squadron. 

Carystion’s connection with these events is given in 
the scholium to Aristophanes’ Vesp. 283, as follows: 
τοῦτο δὲ μαθόντες, Σάμιοι μηχανήν τινα κατεσχεύασαν nat” αὐτῶν, 
ἣν μαθόντες ᾿Αθηναῖοι ὑπό τινος ΚΚαρυστίωνος ἐφυλάξαντο, xa! 
Σαμίους μὲν χαχῶς διέθηχαν. The Samians, having learned 
‘that Pericles had detached part of his force τὸ attack 
the King,*® planned a stratagem against the Athenians. 
The latter, being put on their guard by Carystion, worsted 
the Samians. Judging from the outcome of the en- 
counter, the information of Carystion may be connected 
with the former of the two engagements mentioned 
above.*7 As a reward, besides other honors, citizenship 
was granted to Carystion: τὸν δὲ Kapvotiwva ἐτίμιησαν 
[᾿Αθηναῖοι] σφόδρα μετὰ τοῦ γένους, καὶ τῆς αὐτῶν πολιτείας 
ἠξίωσαν." 

SADOCUS. In 431 B.C. the Athenians, desiring to 
make an alliance with Sitaleces king of Thrace, sent for 
Nymphodorus, a citizen of Abdera, who was a brother- 
in-law of Sitalees and had great influence with him. 
Nymphodorus came to Athens and conducted the negotia- 
tions. In connection with the alliance he secured Athe- 
nian citizenship for Sadocus, the son of Sitalces: τὸν 
Σιτάλχην οἱ ᾿Αθηνοῖοι ξύμμαχον ἐποιοῦντο, βουλόμενοι σφίσι τὰ ἐπὶ 
Θρᾷάχης χωρία χαὶ Περδίχχαν ξυνεξελεῖν αὐτόν. ἐλθών τε ἐς τὰς 
᾿Αθήνας ὁ Νυμφόδωρος τήν τε τοῦ Σιτάλκχου ξυμμαχίαν ἐποίησε καὶ 
Σάδοχον τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ ᾿Αθηναῖον τόν τε ἐπὶ Θράχης πόλεμον ὑπεδέ- 


46 Cf. the “Phoenicians” in Thue. i. 116. 
47 Busolt, Griech. Gesch., III, 1, 544, τ. 7. 
48 Schol. Aristoph. Vesp. 288. 


REASONS FOR GRANTING CITIZENSHIP 33 


 -yeto καταλύσειν" πείσειν γὰρ Σιτάλκην πέμπειν στρατιὰν Oogxtay 
᾿Αθηναίοις ἱππέων τε χαὶ πελταστῶν.“ 

PLATAEANS. Two years after the beginning of the 
Peloponnesian war the Lacedaemonians invaded the ter- 
ritory of Plataea and summoned the city to surrender. 
But the Plataeans refused to break their alliance with 
Athens, and thereupon Archidamus laid siege to the city. 
After several months of vain endeavor to capture the 
place. the Lacedaemonians resorted to the slow process 
of starvation. After the city had been blockaded for 
more than a year and supplies had begun to fail, half of 
the garrison determined to make a break for liberty, a 
feat which they accomplished by scaling the walls of cir- 
cumvallation under cover of darkness, piercing the lines 
of the enemy, and making good their escape to Athens.” 
The two hundred and twelve survivors of this heroic dash 
for liberty were granted Athenian citizenship in 428/7 
B.C. The grant is mentioned in the speech Against 
Neaera, 104: τοῖς οὖν οὕτω φανερῶς ἐνδεδειγμένοις τὴν εὔνοιαν 
τῷ δήμῳ, χαὶ προεμένοις ἅπαντα τὰ αὑτῶν καὶ παῖδας καὶ γυναῖχας͵ 
πάλιν σχοπεῖτε πῶς μετέδοτε τῆς πολιτείας. Although the 
Thebans destroyed the city and the fugitive Plataeans 
were without a native land, yet it is well to note that this 
fact was only the occasion, and not the reason, for the 
bestowal of citizenship upon them. ‘The reason for their 
enfranchisement, as well as the cause of their banish- 
ment, was their εὔνοια toward the Athenian State, which 
was manifested by their act of giving up all that was dear 
to them rather than forsake the Athenians. Each Plataean 
had to prove εἰ [ἔστι] τῶν φίλων τῶν τῆς πόλεως," and the 
speaker declares that they had shown themselves ὁμολογου- 
μένως ἀρίστους τῶν Ἑλλήνων εἰς τὴν πόλιν.2 The Plataeans 
were the only Greek people who had come to the assist- 
ance of Athens at Marathon; when Xerxes invaded 
Greece they had refused to abandon the Athenian alli- 


49 Thue. ii. 29. 

50 Thue. iii. 20-24. 
51 [Dem.] 59. 105. 
52 Ibid., 107. 


34 REASONS FOR GRANTING CITIZENSHIP 


ance, half οὐ them falling at Thermopylae, and half par- 
ticipating in the sea-fights at Artemisium and Salamis; 
they had fought against Mardonius in the battle of Pla- 
taea for the liberation of Greece; and they had brought 
suit successfully before the Amphictyonic Council against 
the Lacedaemonians for their presumption in inscribing 
upon the tripod at Delphi, which commemorated the joint 
victory of the confederate Greeks at Plataea and Sala- 
mis, verses which attributed this achievement to Pausa- 
nias, king of the Lacedaemonians, alone.** 

CORINTHUS. In what is probably one of the earli- 
est decrees of citizenship’* a man by the name of Corin- 
thus (?) is made and Athenian.** The reason given is: [ὅτι 
ἀνὴρ ἀγάθός] ἐστιν π[ερὶ ᾿Αθηναίους ποιῶν 6 τι δύνατ] αἱ ayabd[y 
τὴν πόλιν καὶ τὴν στρατιὰν τ] ἣν ᾿Αθηναί[ὧν καὶ ἀνθ᾽ ὧν εὐεργέτης 
χεν}. Corinthus’ services seem to have been of a military 
character, but it is impossible to determine exactly what 
they were. Kirchoff holds the view, accepted by Meyer,*® 
that there is some connection between this decree and the 
statement of Thucydides*’ that in 421 B.C. the Corin- 
thians, through the agency of the Boeotians, tried in 
vain to obtain for themselves the same truce with the 
Athenians which Athens had granted to Boeotia. How- 
ever, this view is not probable, nor does the inscription 
offer anything in its favor.*® 

THRASYBULUS and APOLLODORUS. About Sep- 
tember, 411 B: C., Phrynichus, one of the Four Hun- 
dred, was assassinated in the market-place not far 
from the senate-house. For their service to the Democ- 
racy the perpetrators, Thrasybulus a Calydonian and 
Apollodorus a Megarian, were made Athenians in 410/09 
B.C.°° The reason, as given in the decree for Thrasy- 
bulus, is: ἀντὶ ὧν εὖ πεπο[ίηχεν τήν te βουλὴν] καὶ τὸν δή[μο]ν 


568 Ibid., 94 ff. 

54 76,1, Suppl. 46a. 

55 Wilhelm, Mélanges Nicole, 597 ff. 
56 Op. cit., IV, p. 478, sec. 636. 

57 =v. 82. 

58 Wilhelm, op. cit., 598. 

59 IG, I, 59. 


REASONS FOR GRANTING CITIZENSHIP 35 


τὸν ᾿Αθηναίω [ν]. and the details are given fully by Thucy- 
dides,®° Lysias,* Lycurgus, and Plutarch.® 

EVAGORAS. Evagoras, king of Salamis, was granted 
citizenship™ before 405 B.C., for Isocrates,® after re- 
lating the flight of Conon to Cyprus, his meeting with 
Evagoras, and the warm friendship and community of 
interest which arose between them, states that both 
Conon and Evagoras felt very keenly the disaster at 
Aegospotami and that this feeling was natural, τῷ 
[Κόνωνι] μὲν γὰρ ἦν φύσει πατρίς [᾿Αθῆναι], τὸν δὲ [Εὐαγόραν] 
διὰ πολλὰς χαὶ μεγάλας εὐεργεσίας νόμῳ πολίτην ἐπεποίηντο 
[᾿Αθηναῖοι]. As Evagoras established himself in Cyprus 
about 410 B.C., the grant falls between that date and 
405 Β. C. IG, I, 64, to which Wilhelm® joins JG, I, Suppl. 
116w, probably records this grant. Unfortunately the 
inscription is so badly broken that the exact services for 
which Evagoras was honored cannot be determined, al- 
though their general character is clear. The clause, 
ἐπειδὴ δέ ἐστι ἀνὴρ ἀγαθὸς περὶ τὸν δῆμον Εὐαγόρα]ς ὁ Σα- 
alvliviols χαὶ πρόθυμος ὧν διατελεῖ ποιεῖν ὅ τ7 . δύναται ἀγαθ[όν], 
shows that he used his political power to the advantage 
of Athens, and Isocrates*’ states that the services thus 
rendered were πολλὰς χαὶ μεγάλας. His services during the 
early part of his reign must have been similar in charac- 
ter to those rendered between Aegospotami and Cnidus, 
which are better known. In general, the administration 
of Evagoras was characterized by leniency and modera- 
tion, and by remarkable material and intellectual prog- 
ress. Athenian immigrants were invited to Salamis and 

60 viii. 92. 

61 13. 71 ff. — 

62 In Leocr. 112 ff. 

63 Ale. 25. Several scholars (Szanto, Rohl, and Kirchoff) 
Suppose that Apollodorus was deprived of his grant by a Ὑραφὴ 
παρανόμων, but their arguments are not conclusive. Cf. Valeton, 
Hermes, XLIII (1908), 481-99. For further discussion of this 
case see pp. 14 ff. 

64 Ep. Phil. 10. 

65 9. δά. 

66 BphW, XXII (1902), 1100. 

67 Loe. cit. 


36 REASONS FOR GRANTING CITIZENSHIP 


Greek arts taught, so that in a few years great strides 
had been made. Furthermore, Evagoras endeavored to 
introduce Greek culture and naturally turned to Athens 
as its native source. Thus his relations with the Athe- 
nians became very intimate. The words τῶν ἀφιχνουμένων "5 
are probably part of a statement of the welcome accorded 
to Athenians who came to Evagoras’ realm. Besides 
artisans, many Athenian refugees found an asylum in 
Cyprus from the time of the Sicilian disaster to the end 
of the war.°® The King and Tissaphernes are also men- 
tioned in the decree. At a later period Evagoras proved 
influential in securing the Persian aid which gained the 
battle of Cnidus. Before the date of our decree, also, he 
may have used his good offices in the interest of Athens 
at the court of the king of Persia.” 

In 406 B.C., after Conon had been de- 
feated by the Spartan admiral Callicratides, he was 
blockaded in the harbor of Mytilene. As the city was 
in no condition to withstand a siege, Conon sent 
‘in all haste to Athens for relief. The Athenians, 
fully realizing the seriousness of the situation, voted 
to send out one hundred and ten ships and to man 
them with all the slaves and freemen of military age. 
As a reward for enlisting, citizenship was given to metics 
and foreigners: ᾿Αθηναῖοι μὲν χατὰ τὸ συνεχὲς ἐλαττώμασι 
περιπίπτοντες ἐποιήσαντο πολίτας τοὺς μετοίχους χαὶ τῶν ἄλλων 
ξένων τοὺς βουλομένους συναγωνίσασθαι: 

SAMIANS. In 405 B.C. the Samians were made 
Athenians ἀντὶ ὧν εὖ πεποιήχασιν ᾿Αθηναίους nat νῦν περὶ πολλοῦ 
“ποιοῦνται χαὶ ἐσηγοῦνται ἀγαθά. 2 The reason assigned is 
their present and past good services and proposals. The 
date of the decree enables us to determine the nature of 
these services. It was passed shortly after the battle of 
Aegospotami, when Lysander was reducing the cities of 
the Hellespont and adjacent islands. Every city sub- 


68 IG, I, 64, 1. 6. 

69 Cf. Isoc. 9. 51. 

70 Paus. i. 3. 1; Wilhelm, Mélanges Nicole, 602. 
71 Diodor. xiii. 97. 

72 IG, Il, 1, ll. 11 f. 


REASONS FOR GRANTING CITIZENSHIP 37 


mitted except Samos. The Samians had already sent an 
embassy to Athens, and at the time of this decree another 
was present, having come with proposals of alliance be- 
tween the two states. 

The former services of Samos were also probably con- 
nected with the Peloponnesian war. The great disaster 
which befell Athenian arms at Syracuse afforded her 
allies an admirable opportunity to assert their independ- 
ence. Euboea, Lesbos, and Chios opened negotiations 
with Sparta; Miletus and other cities joined the move- 
ment. The King and Tissaphernes concluded an alliance 
with the Lacedaemonians and their allies. At this dark 
period of Athenian affairs Samos proved an invaluable 
friend. The people of that island overthrew the ruling 
oligarchy, which contemplated joining the revolt, and be- 
came faithful allies of the Athenians.”* Throughout the 
rest of the war Samos was of the utmost importance to 
Athens as a naval base in her operations in Ionia and the 
Asiatic side of the Aegean Sea. The service of the 
Samian demos to the cause of democracy during the re- 
gime of the Four Hundred is well known. When news 
of the revolution at Athens reached the Athenian arament 
at Samos, a great democratic assembly was convened, at 
which Thrasybulus and Thrasyllus bound over all the 
soldiers, and especially those who had previously been ad- 
herents of the oligarchical party, to maintain a demo- 
cratic government, to live in harmony, to push the war 
against the Peloponnesians energetically, to be enemies 
of the Four Hundred, and to enter into no friendly com- 
munication with them. Furthermore, all the Samians of © 
military age took the same oath and henceforth united 
with the Athenians of the fleet for whatever issue, feel- 
ing a common danger from the Four Hundred at Athens 
and the enemy at Miletus."* The services of the Samians 
were, therefore, of a political and military character. 

EUMACHUS. In the decree granting citizenship to 
the Samians Eumachus, one of the Samian ambassadors, 


73 Thue. viii. 21; 7G, I, 56. 
74 Thue. viii. 75. 


38 REASONS FOR GRANTING CITIZENSHIP 


is praised by name, together with the other members of 
the embassy collectively, ὡς οὖσιν ἀνδράσιν [ἀγαθοῖς περὶ τοὺς 
᾿Αθηναίους]. He was, of course, included in the grant of 
citizenship, as is shown by the phrase, [καλέσαι δ᾽ Edy] αχον 
ἐπὶ δ] :εῖπνον ἐς τὸ πρυτανεῖον [ἐς αὔριον]. He was made an 
Athenian for the same general reason which applied to 
the rest of the Samians, and he was specially mentioned 
because he was the bearer of proposals of alliance with 
Athens. 

POSES. In a subsequent decree” for the Samians 
Poses is individually honored. Like Eumachus Poses 
had been included in the former grant of citizenship to 
the Samians; in confirmation it is here decreed that 
[χύρια εἶναι τὰ ἐψηφισμένα πρότε ]7ρον ὑπὸ τοῦ δήμου τοῦ ᾿Αθηναίων. 
Poses is called an ἀνὴρ ἀγαθὸς περὶ ᾿Αθηναίους and high 
honors are voted him ἀνθ᾽ ὧν [ed πεποίηχε τὸν δῆμον]. The 
specific services of Poses are not known, but he may have 
been connected with the Samian embassy which is men- 
tioned in this connection as requesting the co-operation 
of the Athenians in a mission to Sparta. 

HERACLIDES. About 423 B.C. Epilycus, the uncle 
of Andocides, as ambassador of Athens made a treaty 
with Darius II. The embassy, having returned to Ath- 
ens, reported that Heraclides, a Clazomenian, had co- 
operated heartily with them and had aided materially in 
securing the truce with the King. He was voted many 
honors for his general friendliness toward the Athenian 
State and for his services to the Athenian ambassadors: 
[ἐπειδὴ εὖ ἐποίησ]:εν τὰς ᾿Αθηναίω[ν πρεσβείας καὶ ἐν πᾶσι ἀ]νήρ 
ἐστι: ἀγαθὸς εἰς τὸν δήμον τὸν ᾿Αθη]ναίων. ---- ---- ---- ἐ[πειδὴ δὲ 
οἱ πρέσβεις οἱ π]αρὰ βασιλέως ἥχ[οντες ἀγγέλλουσι ‘Hoax ]Aetny 
συμπράττειν ἑαυτοῖς προθύμως ἔ]ς te τὰς σπονδὰς [τὰς πρὸς βασι- 
λέα ἔς τε ἄ]λλο ὅ τι ἐπαγγέζλειαν7γ.73 Heraclides then moved 
to Athens where he was: granted citizenship after 408 


015 76, IP; 1. (405/4-B.€.), lk 36 f. 
76. Ibid., 11. 37. f. 
77 JIG, Il’, 1 (4038/2 B.C.). 
78 IG, Il’, 8; Kohler, Hermes, XXVII (1892), 77. 


REASONS FOR GRANTING CITIZENSHIP 39 


B. C.,7° and not long before 391 B.C.*%° This last recog- 
nition he owed to his former services and also to the fact 
that he, like other strangers, actively supported the 
Democratic party against the Thirty.*: 

EUCLES. 76, 1135, 678 (276/5 B.C.) contains the 
clause, ἐπαινέσαι δὲ nal τὸν κήρυχα τῆς βουλῆς χαὶ τοῦ δήμου 
Εὐχλή[ν] Φιλοχλέους Τρινεμειᾶ., The presence of the deme- 
name shows that the Eucles here mentioned was an Athe- 
nian citizen. His great-great-grandfather, Eucles, was 
honored by a decree passed after the restoration of the 
Democracy in 403 B.C.*? A grant of πρόσοδος in this de- 
eree shows that at that time Eucles was not an Athenian 
citizen.** Therefore one of the family received a grant of 
citizenship. We have cited this case under the name of | 
Eucles the elder, because, whichever one of the family 
received the grant of citizenship, it was based upon his 
services. Eucles the elder was made herald of the sen- 
ate and granted other honors, ἀνδραγαθίας [ἕνεκα χαὶ προθυ- 
utag], ἐπειδὴ ἀνὴρ ἀγαθὸς ἐγένετο περὶ τὸν δῆμον τ] ὃν ᾿Αθηναίων 
nal τὴγ χάθ[οδον τοῦ δήμου τοῦ ᾿Αθὴν]7 αίων καὶ τὴν ἐλευθερί[αν].5 
and later; when his son Philocles was appointed herald 
of the senate, one reason given was, ἐπειδ [ἢ] ἀνὴρ ἀγαθὸς 
[ἐγένετο ὁ πατὴρ τοῦ D]rhoxAcove περὶ τ[ὃ]ν δήμο[ν τὸν ᾿Αθηναί- 
ων χαὶ τ] Hy χάθοδον τοῦ δήμου. 5 In recognition of the servi- 
ces of Eucles the elder toward the restoration of the De- 
mocracy, either Eucles himself or one of his descendants 
received Athenian citizenship, and was admitted to the 
deme Τρινεμεία. 

-THESSALIANS and ANDRIANS. In 399 B.C. An- 
decides defended himself on a charge of impiety. In 
making his final plea, when contrasting the penalty which 
his accusers wished to impose upon him, a native Athe- 
nian, with the honors which the Athenians bestowed 


79 Kohler, op. cit., 76. 

80 Wilamowitz, Aristot. u. Athen, I, 188, ἢ, 4. 
81 Kohler, loc. cit. 

82 IG, II’, 145. 

89 Ditt. Syill.’, 117, n. 1. 

84 IG, 11", 145, ll. 4-8. 

85 Ibid., ll. 14-16. 


40 REASONS FOR GRANTING CITIZENSHIP 


upon persons who had no claim upon the state, he says: 
un βούλεσθε Θετταλοὺς καὶ ᾿Ανδρίους πολίτας ποιεῖσθαι δι᾽ ἀπορίαν 
ἀνδρῶν, τοὺς δὲ ὄντας πολίτας ὁμολογουμένως, οἷς προσήχει ἀνδρά- 
σιν ἀγαθοῖς εἶναι χαὶ βουλόμενοι δυνήσονται, τούτους δὲ ἀπόλλυτε." 
The scarcity of men which is given as the reason for the 
enfranchisement of Thessalians and Andrians was the re- 
sult of losses suffered during the Peloponnesian war. 
At the close of this war there were at least fifteen thou- 
sand fewer citizens than at its beginning,®*” and many new 
citizens were admitted to increase the number. 
STHORUS. Sthorus, a Thasian seer, was blamed 
citizenship in 394/3 B.C.** The part of the inscription 
which contains what appears to be the specific reason is 
damaged, but reference is made to the battle of Cnidus; 
and in the decree of the senate providing for the erection 
of two stelai the statement is made, [ὅτι πρόθυμό]ς ἐστ! 
ποιεῖν 6 τι δύναται [ἀγαθὸν τὴν στρατιάν]. That he had fur- 
nished money for military purposes may be inferred from 
the motion, τοὺς δὲ [ot] ρατηγοὺς τοὺς [ἐνθ]7 ade ἀποδοῦνα[- αὐτῷ 
τὸν μι7σθ[ὃν ὅ]σομπερ πέρυ[σι]ν ἔφερε. Somewhat later, in 
390/89 Β. C., Sthorus is mentioned, in connection with an 
embassy from Thasos, in a decree®® which deals with the 
restoration of the alliance between Thasos and Athens. 
STRABAX and POLYSTRATUS. Aristotle quotes 
the statement of Theodectas that Strabax was granted 
citizenship. As Polystratus was honored with Strabax,” 
he very probably received the same distinction. Both 
were honored διὰ τὴν ἐπιείχειαν,58 and, as they were honored 
on the recommendation of Iphicrates, their services were 
of a military character. Polystratus is mentioned by 
Demosthenes™ as a commander of mercenary troops in 


86 Andoc. 1. 149. 

87 Busolt, Miller, Hdb. d. kl. Altertumswiss., IV, 1, 1, 199. 
88 IG, II’, 17. 

89 Ibid., 11. 26-28. 

90 IG, II’, 24. 

91 Rhet. 13996 2. 

92 Dem. 20. 84. 

93 Aristot. loc. cit. 

94 4, 24, 


REASONS FOR GRANTING CITIZENSHIP 41 


the Corinthian war. And concerning Strabax, F. A. Wolf 
says:° “Strabax et ipse de commendatione Iphicratis or- 
natus videri potest Iphicratis in eodem bello adiutor 
fuisse.” The year when Strabax and Polystratus were 
granted citizenship may have been 390 B.C., when a 
bronze statue was erected in honor of Iphicrates as a re- 
ward for his services in annihilating a Spartan mora at 
Corinth. 

PASION and APOLLODORUS. Pasion, a banker and 
resident of Athens, was admitted to citizenship between 
390 and 370 B. C., διὰ τὰς εὐεργεσίας τὰς εἰς τὴν πόλιν. 7 His 
services to the state are summed up by his son Apollodo- 
rus, when he says to the Athenian jury: οὑμὸς ὑμῖν πατὴρ 
χιλίας ἔδωχεν ἀσπίδας, καὶ πολλὰ χρήσιμον αὑτὸν παρέσχε, καὶ 
πέντε [τριήρεις] ἐθελοντὴς ἐπιδοὺς καὶ map’ ἑαυτοῦ πληρώσας 
ἐτριηράρχησε τριηραρχίας. 8 The good services for which he 
was enfranchised took the form of contributions to the 
state. He was quite able to do this for he was a man of 
means. His landed property was valued at twenty tal- 
ents, and in addition to that he had money of his own lent 
at interest, amounting to more than fifty talents. 

ARCHIPPUS and HIPPARCHUS. In 7G, II’, 25 
(390/89-387/6 B.C.) citizenship is granted to two 
brothers, Archippus and Hipparchus, natives of Thasos. 
They were honored ἀνδραγαθίας ev[exa] τῆς ἐς ᾿Αθηναίους. 
The specific service rendered by them at this time can- 
not be determined, but it was probably of a political 
character, if one may judge from a previous decree 
passed in their honor.*®° This decree relates to the restora- 
tion of the alliance between the Athenians and the Tha- 
sians. In 389 B.C. Thrasybulus settled matters in 
Thrace and the Hellespont, and in 388 B.C. Thasos was 


95 Ad Dem. loc. cit. 

96 Xen. Hell. iv. 5. 10 ff.; [Dem.] 18. 22; Aeschines 3. 248. 

97 Kirchner, Pros. Att., II, No. 11672; [Dem.] 59. 2; 46. 15; 
Dem. 36. 47. 

98 Dem. 45. 85. 

99 Dem. 36. 5, 48, 44. 

100 IG, II’, 24 (890/89 B.C.). 


42 REASONS FOR GRANTING CITIZENSHIP 


under Athenian control.’ From mention of an embassy 
of the Thasians in the decree’” it seems that Archippus 
and Hipparchus were leaders of the embassy which ne- 
gotiated the alliance at Athens. 

COTYS. Cotys, king of Thrace, received Athenian 
citizenship δῆλον ὡς χατ᾽ ἐχεῖνον τὸν χρόνον εὔνουν ἡγούμενοι χκαὶ 
φίλον. The grant must have been made between 382 
B. C., the year of the accession of Cotys to the throne, 
and 865 B.C., after which year he became an open 
enemy of Athens. He was honored probably for giving 
the Athenians political and commercial favors, and per- 
haps for allowing them territorial privileges. During 
this period the Athenian general Iphicrates was in the 
service of Cotys and attained great distinction among 
the Thracians, receiving the king’s daughter in marriage 
and being granted a seaport village near the mouth of 
the Hebrus, where he established a Greek colony. Iphi- 
crates was in an excellent position to make Cotys a 
friend of Athens. 

DIONYSIUS I and his sons DIONYSIUS and HER- 
MOCRITUS. Dionysius, the king of Sicily, and his two 
sons were granted citizenship by a decree passed in 369/8 
B. C.°%* They were thus honored ὅτι ε[ἰσὶν ἀγαθοὶ ἄνδρες] 
[π]ερὶ τὸν δῆμον τὸν [᾿Αθηναίων χαὶ] τοὺς συμμάχους xat 
βοηθ[οὔσιν τῇ βασ] λέως εἰ[ρή] νὴ ἣν ἐποιήσαντο ᾿Αθηναῖοι] nat 
Λαχεδαιμόνιο [17 xLa]t [οἱ ἄλλοι Ἕλληνες]. Although Diony- ~ 
sius had formerly taken the side of the Spartans, since 
the alliance between the latter and the Athenians against 
the Thebans in 370/69 B. C. he had become reconciled to 
the Athenians.’ An embassy had come to Athens bear- 
ing a letter which dealt with: (1) the rebuilding of the 
temple of Apollo at Delphi, which had been thrown down 
by an earthquake in 373 B.C.; (2) the peace. Xeno- 


101 Xen. Hell. v. 1. 7. 

102 Fr. a, 1. 12 and 8, 1. 16. 

103 Dem. 23. 118. 

104 IG, II’, 103. 

105 Xen. Hell. vii. 1. 20, 28; Diodor. xv. 20. 


REASONS FOR GRANTING CITIZENSHIP 43 


phon’ says that in the summer of 368 B.C. the The- 
bans, the allies, and the Lacedaemonians assembled at 
Delphi to consider means of restoring peace.'*’ Xeno- 
phon and Diodorus both represent Philiscus of Abydus 
as the originator of the convention, the former repre- 
senting him as the agent of Ariobarzanes, the latter of 
Artaxerxes. It appears from this inscription, however, 
that Dionysius also was instrumental in promoting meas- 
ures of peace. The motivation of the grant takes into con- 
sideration Dionysius’ present efforts to restore peace on 
the basis of the King’s Peace, and his proposals concern- 
ing the rebuilding of the temple at Delphi. 

ASTYCRATES. Astycrates, a Delphian, was granted 
citizenship in 363/2 B.C.1°%* The reason assigned is as 
follows: [ἐπειδὴ] ᾿Ανδρόνιχος ὁ Θετταλὸς [ἱερομνημονῶν] παρὰ 
τοὺς νόμους τῶν ᾿Α[μ]φ[κτιόνων καὶ] τοὺς Δελφῶν εἰσήγαγεν 
ἀ[ειφυγίαν κατ᾽] ᾿Αστυχράτους χαὶ τῶν μετ᾽ α[ὐτοῦ ὥστε guy]a- 
δεῦσαι ᾿Αστυχράτην καὶ [τοὺς μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ] καὶ τὰς οὐσίας ἀφείλετο. 
In 363 B.C. Thebes was supreme in Northern Greece. 
At the spring meeting of the Amphictyonic Council cer- 
tain motions were introduced, apparently by the mem- 
bers of the Boeotian league, which were disadvantageous. 
to the Phocians. It is very probable that the Thebans 
attempted to make the Amphictyonic Council subserve 
their own political purposes. The Phocians were de- 
cidedly opposed to the supremacy of Thebes and it may 
be that they declined to follow the Boeotians against 
Alexander of Pherae.’*® At any rate the Phocians were 
supported by the minority of the Council, represented by 
Astycrates and his ten associates, who became so unruly 
that the Council banished them. They sought refuge at 
Athens, where they were kindly received. Citizenship 
was granted to Astycrates.’° 

PHORMIO. Phormio, a freedman of Pasion the 
banker and a resident of Athens, was made an Athenian 


106 Hell. vii. 1. 27. 

107 Cf. Diodor. xv. 70. 

108 JG, 11", 109. 

109 Pomtow, Klio, VI (1906), 95. 
110 IJbid., 94. 


44 REASONS FOR GRANTING CITIZENSHIP 


citizen in 3861/0 B.C." In Dem. 36. 56 the defendant 
calls upon the clerk to read ὅσα δημοσίᾳ χρήσιμος τῇ πόλει 
γέγον᾽ οὑτοσί [Φορμίων], and in Dem. 45. 81 Apollodorus 
charges Phormio with πόλιν ἐκ τῶν ἡμετέρων σαυτῷ χτησάμε- 
νος. Phormio’s wealth had enabled him to acquire citi- 
zenship by making contributions to the state. Apollo- 
dorus explains’’* how his father Pasion had taught Phor- 
mio reading and writing, instructed him in his trade, and 
put a large property under his management, so that he 
became wealthy. \ The hard times which prevailed before 
362/1 B. C. may have given Phormio his opportunity. As 
the result of maritime disasters the stock of grain was 
becoming short and the price was rising, not merely at 
Athens, but at many islands in the Aegean, and at Byzan- 
tium and other places. Great competition arose in im- 
portation. The Byzantines, Chalcedonians, and Cyzi- 
cenes had already begun to detain the passing grain ships 
for the supply of their own markets. Convoys out of the 
Euxine were necessary. Then in 361/0 B.C. Cotys sur- 
prised Sestus and established toll-gatherers.""* As Phor- 
mio was engaged in trade with the Hellespont, perhaps 
his services were rendered in connection with the grain 
scarcity of this period. 

PYTHO and HERACLIDES. Pytho and Heraclides 
of Aenus were granted citizenship about 360 B. C.1* for 
the following reason: ἀλλ᾽ ὅμως, ἐπειδὴ πονηρὸς χαὶ θεοῖς 
ἐχθρὸς ἦν [Κότυς] xat μεγάλ᾽ ὑμᾶς ἠδίχει, τοὺς ἀποχτείναντας 
ἐκεῖνον Πύθωνα καὶ Ἡρακλείδην, τοὺς Αἰνίους, πολίτας ἐποιήσασθ᾽ 
“Oe εὐεργέτας χαὶ χρυσοῖς στεφάνοις ἐστεφανώσατε. 5 Having 
assassinated Cotys, Pytho, at least, fled to Athens ὅτε... 
οὐχ ἀσφαλὲς ἡγεῖτ᾽ ἀπελθεῖν ὅποι τύχοι, and asked for citizen- 
510... It was safe to go to Athens because there he 
could expect to receive protection and honor in return 
for his service. 


111 [Dem.] 46. 13. 

112 Dem. 45. 72. 

118 Dem. 28. 136, 211. 

114 Beloch, op. cit., II, 808, 
115 Dem. 28. 119. 

116 Ibid., 127. 


REASONS FOR GRANTING CITIZENSHIP 45 


LEUCON. Leucon (387-347 B.C.), the first of the 
line of Bosporic princes to whom it is certain that citi- 
zenship was granted, was made an Athenian before 355/4 
B. C.,1°7 the year of Demosthenes’ speech Against Lep- 
tines. Demosthenes, immediately after mentioning the 
grant, recounts the services of Leucon to Athens, services 
upon which his grant of citizenship, as well as his other 
honors, was based. ‘Now, whilst our other benefactors 
have each made themselves useful to us for a particular 
period, Leucon, as you will find, never ceases to confer 
benefits upon us, and such benefits as our country stands 
most in need of. You are of course aware that we con- 
sume more foreign grain than any people in the world. 
But the grain which comes in from the Euxine equals 
the whole quantity that comes from other markets; and 
no wonder, not only because that district has an abund- 
ance of grain, but because Leucon, who reigns there, has 
granted exemption from duty to those who export to 
Athens, and issues an order that merchants bound for 
our port shall load their vessels first. Having the ex- 
emption for himself and his children, he has given it to 
all of you. Observe what an important thing itis. He 
takes a thirtieth from all who export grain from his do- 
minions. Now, the measures of grain that come from 
his country are about four hundred thousand, as one may 
see from the entry kept by the grain importers. There- 
fore, for the three hundred thousand he gives ten thou- 
sand and for the one hundred thousand about three thou- 
sand. And so far is he from depriving our common- 
wealth of this boon, that when he made a new harbor at 
Theodosia, which the mariners say is not at all inferior 
to Bosporus, he gave us the exemption there also. Many 
other instances which I could mention of benefits con- 
ferred upon you by this prince and his ancestors I pass 
by; but the year before last, when there was a scarcity 
among all men, he sent you not only a plentiful supply of 


117 Dem. 20. 30. 


46 REASONS FOR GRANTING CITIZENSHIP 


grain, but at such a price that there was a surplus of 
fifteen talents in the hands of Callisthenes.’’* 

This grant is one of a number which are connected 
with commercial treaties and are based upon economic 
reasons. Most important among them are grants to per- 
sons who lived in the neighborhood of the Hellespont. 
They show us how necessary it was for the grain supply 
of Athens that this avenue of commerce be kept open and 
that friendly relations be maintained with the nations 
which inhabited grain-producing countries. The Tauric 
Chersonese was one of the chief granaries of Athens. 
This region had been opened up to Greek trade by the 
Milesians, who planted colonies on both sides of the Eux- 
ine Sea. At the time of the maritime supremacy of 
Athens her merchants gained control of the trade with 
the Pontus. In exchange for wines, and manufactures 
such as armor, cloth, leather, hardware, earthenware, 
sculpture, jewelry, etc., the Athenians brought back 
grain, salt fish, honey, wax, wool, hides, fleeces, timber, 
and slaves. The relations between Athens and the 
princes who ruled this territory covered many years and 
were of the most friendly character. 

CERSOBLEPTES, TERES, CHARIDEMUS, and EU- 
DERCES. In his letter’’® to the Athenians Philip states 
that decrees have been passed commanding him to let 
Teres and Cersobleptes rule in Thrace because they are 
Athenians. There are numerous references to the citi- 
zenship of Charidemus.° Demosthenes!2: connects the 
citizenship of Charidemus with Cersobleptes: ὑμεῖς ἐποιή- 
cach’ ἔν τισι καιροῖς χαὶ χρόνοις ᾿Αριοβαρζάνην πολίτην χαὶ δι᾽ 
ἐκεῖνον Φιλίσχον, ὥσπερ νῦν διὰ Κερσοβλέπτην Χαρίδημον, and 
again,’*? referring to the honors of Cersobleptes, De- 
mosthenes states that both Charidemus and Euderces'”* 
were associated with him in these honors: “‘And on this 


118 Quotations in English from Demosthenes are taken from 
Kennedy’s translation. 

119 Ep. Phil. 8. 

120 Dem. 23. 65, 145, 151; Aristot. Rhet. 1899b 2-3. 

121. 28-44%. 

122 Ibid., 208. 

123 Of Euderces nothing further is known. 


REASONS FOR GRANTING CITIZENSHIP 47 


last occasion, when they were for giving such honors as 
they thought fit to Cersobleptes, and were intent upon 
that object, they associate with him two persons, one of 
whom has done all the mischief that you have heard, and 
the other, a man named Euderces, no one knows anything 
about.” All three were granted citizenship in connec- 
tion with the same events. The time of the grant to 
Cersobleptes falls between 360 B.C., the year in which 
Cersobleptes succeeded his father, and 352 B. C., the year 
of Demosthenes’ speech Against Aristocrates. Charide- 
mus was honored διὰ τὴν emeinerav?** and ὡς εὐεργέτης.᾽" 5 As 
a mercenary general in Thrace Charidemus was often ii 
the service of Athens, being especially prominent in the 
relations between Athens and the Thracian princes. After 
the death of Cotys Cersobleptes was opposed by two aspi- 
rants for shares in the kingdom, Berisades and Amado- 
cus. After several years of unsuccessful effort on the 
part of Athens to bring the rival claimants to an agree- 
ment, the Athenians sent out a mercenary force which 
finally brought the recalcitrant princes to terms. IG, 
115, 126 records this agreement of 357/6 B.C. The de- 
cree deals with the relations of the Greek states on the 
Thracian coasts to the Thracian princes and to Athens. 
The kingdom of Thrace was divided among the three 
princes, Cersobleptes, Berisades, and Amadocus. The 
Athenians apparently bound themselves to see that the 
Thracian princes regularly received the tribute of certain 
states due them; while the Thracian princes promised 
help to the Athenians in case the states leagued with 
them, to whom, in accordance with the agreement of alli- 
ance of 378 B.C., freedom and independence were as- 
sured, should fall away from the Athenian league.'”® In 
carrying out this agreement Charidemus, who was in the 
service of Cersobleptes, surrendered to Athens the Cher- 
sonese, including Sestus. It was very probably in con- 


124 Aristot. loc. cit. 
125 Dem. 23. 145. 
126 Hock, Hermes, XXVI (1891), 105. 


48 REASONS FOR GRANTING CITIZENSHIP 


nection with these events that the Athenians honored 
Cersobleptes, Charidemus, and Euderces. 

ORONTES. Orontes, satrap of Mysia, was granted 
citizenship in 349/8 B.C.!27 An exchange of embassies 
is mentioned in the decree. ‘The friendly attitude of 
Orontes at the present time and in the past is given as 
the reason for the grant, while references are made to 
money for grain, support for armies, and agreements 
between Athens and Orontes. In 354 B.C., when there 
was talk of a Persian invasion of Greece, the Athenians 
resolved, in case of any aggression on the part of the 
King, to invite Philip and the other Greeks to oppose 
him'*® Since then the situation had changed essentially. 
Philip, not Persia, threatened Athens. He began the 
siege of Olynthus in 350 B.C. At this critical time 
Athens sought aid in the East. Orontes, who had re- 
volted from the King in 362/1 B.C., had again become 
reconciled to him. The Athenians concluded an agree- 
- ment with Orontes about their mutual relations, and at 
the same time granted him citizenship. 

SPARTOCUS III and PAERISADES I. A decree of 
347/6 B. (..39 grants to Spartocus and Paerisades, sons 
of Leucon, τὰς δωρειὰς ἃς [ὁ δῆμ7ος Boxe Σιατύρῳ nat Λεύχωνι. 
As citizenship was one of the gifts which Leucon, and 
incidentally his sons, had received, it must be included in 
the honors voted specifically to his sons in this decree 
upon their own merit. In 347 B.C., shortly before this 
time, Spartocus and Paerisades had succeeded to the 
kingdom of their father Leucon. They then sent ambas- 
sadors to Athens to arrange for the settlement of a debt 
owed them by the Athenians, and to enlist at Athens men 
to man their ships.**° It was upon this occasion that the 
decree was passed. Citizenship was granted to them, 
[ἐπ]. [ι]1δὴ δὲ [τὰ]ς δωΓ[ρει]ὰς διδόασιν ᾿Αθηναίοι[ς do]neo 
Σ[άτ]υ[ρ07]0ος xat Λεύχων ἔδοσαν,15: especially for favors 


127 IG, Il’, 207. 
128 Ep. Phil. 8. 
129 IG, II’, 212. 
130 Ibid., 11. 53-55. 
131 Ibid., 11. 20-22. 


REASONS FOR GRANTING CITIZENSHIP 49 


shown in connection with the grain trade: 6c. ——— 
ἐπ[αγ]γέλλονται τῷ δήμῳ [τ]ῷ ALO] ἣν [α]ίων ἐπιμςε [A] ἤσεσθαι 
τῆς ἐχ[π]ομπῆς τοῦ [σ] ίτ[07]0υ καθάπερ ὁ πατὴρ αὐτῶν ἐπεμελεῖτο 
nar ὑ[π|ηρετήσειν προθύμως ὅτου ἂν ὁ δῆμ[ος7 δ[ἐΉ] τα[ι] .** 

CALLIAS and TAUROSTHENES. The brothers Cal- 
lias and Taurosthenes, Chalcidians, received citizenship 
upon the motion of Demosthenes.*** The grant was 
made after 343/2 B.C., the time of the alliance between 
Athens and Chalcis,'** and before 340 B.C., the date of 
Philip’s letter to the Athenians. 

In 341 B.C. Euboea was divided in its sympathy to- 
ward Philip and Athens, Oreus and Eretria being in the 
hands of Philip’s friends, while Chalcis, through the in- 
fluence of Callias and Taurosthenes, had formed an alli- 
ance with Athens. After an Athenian embassy had ar- 
ranged a plan of campaign with the Chalcidians, a mili- 
tary expedition was sent to Euboea against Oreus and 
Eretria.**= The expedition was successful in liberating 
both cities. In the campaign against Oreus, especially, 
Callias and Taurosthenes took a leading part.1** Later 
a Euboic synod in alliance with Athens was established, 
with headquarters at Chalcis. Callias was the most im- 
portant man in this synod, taking the lead both as a 
friend of Athens and as an enemy of Philip. He went so 
far as to cross the strait to the Bay of Pagasae, where he 
captured a number of towns and vessels, selling the crews 
of the latter into slavery. “On account of these services,” 
says Philip to the Athenians, “you praised him frequently 
in your decrees.”!*’ Citizenship was probably one of the 
honors then conferred upon Callias and his brother.**® 


132 Jbid., ll. 13-17. 

1383 Aeschines 8. 85; Din. 1. 44; Hyper. 5. 20. 

134 Schaefer, Dem. u. 8. Zeit’, II, 428. 

135 Dem. 18. 79. 

136 Schaefer, op. cit., II, 491, n. 1. 

137 Ep. Phil. 5. 

138 Schol. Aeschines 8. 85: xat γὰρ τῇ ἀληθείᾳ πολίτας αὐτοὺς 
ἐποιήσαντο οἱ ᾿Αθηναῖοι διὰ τὸ τὴν Εὔβοιαν ποιήσασθαι ὑφ᾽ ἑαυτούς. 


50 REASONS FOR GRANTING CITIZENSHIP 


PHILIP. Plutarch,'*® in commenting on the impro- 
priety of the joy manifested by the Athenians at the news 
of Philip’s death, disapproves of their conduct for this 
reason: πρὸς γὰρ τῷ νεμεσητῷ χαὶ ἀγεννές, ζῶντα μὲν τιμᾶν nat 
ποιεῖσθαι πολίτην, πεσόντος δ᾽ ὑφ᾽ ἑτέρου μὴ φέρειν τὴν χώραν με- 
τρίως, ἀλλ᾽ ἐπισχιρτᾶν τῷ νεχρῷ καὶ παιωνίζειν, ὥσπερ αὐτοὺς 
ἀνδραγαθήσαντας. Demades'*® says: ἔγραψα χαὶ Φιλίππῳ τιμάς" 
οὐχ ἀρνοῦμαι. The honors proposed by Demades probably 
included the grant of citizenship. The reason he assigns 
fixes the occasion: δισχιλίους γὰρ αἰχμαλώτους ἄνευ λύτρων καὶ 
χίλια πολιτῶν σώματα χωρὶς χκήρυχος χαὶ τὸν ᾿Ωρωπὸν ἄνευ 
πρεσβείας λαβὼν ὑμῖν ταῦτ᾽ ἔγραψα. ἐπείληπτο δὲ τῆς γραφούσης 
χειρὸς οὐχ ἣ δωροδοχία τῶν Μαχεδόνων, ὡς οὗτοι πλαττόμενοι 
λέγουσιν, ἀλλ᾽ ὁ χαιρὸς Ral ἣ χρεία χαὶ τὸ τῆς πατρίδος συμφέρον 
χαὶ ἡ τοῦ βασιλέως φιλανθρωπία. ἐλθὼν γὰρ ἐπὶ τὸν κίνδυνον 
ἐχθρὸς τῶν ἀγώνων φίλος ἐχωρίσθη, τὸ τῶν νενικηχότων ἄθλον 
τοῖς σφαλεῖσι προσθείς. This passage refers to the events 
which followed Chaeronea. Athens was filled with con- 
sternation. The Athenians knew what to expect from 
such a man as Philip, and the punishment which he meted 
out to Thebes seemed to presage the realization of their | 
worst expectations. However Philip surprised them by 
agreeing to peace and making the concessions which De- 
mades enumerates. Plutarch speaks of Philip’s treat- 
ment of the Athenians as lenient, and Polybus‘*! praises 
Philip’s magnanimity in these words: ‘When he had de- 
feated the Athenians in the fight of Chaeronea, Philip 
obtained much more by his humane and gentle conduct 
after the victory, than he had gained by his arms. For 
by’these he subdued indeed the enemies that were in arms 
against him; but by his gentleness and moderation he 
vanquished all the Athenians, and forced Athens itself 
to receive his laws. Instead of making his resentment 
the rule and means of his conquests, he, on the contrary, 


1389 Dem. 22. 

140 1.9. Cf. Anab. i. 1. 3; Clement Alex. Admonit. ad Gent. 
36b. 

141 v.10. Cf. Diodor. fr. lib. xxxii. 


REASONS FOR GRANTING CITIZENSHIP 51 


pursued his victories no longer than till he had found a 
fair occasion to display his clemency and his love of 
virtue.’’+*? 

ALEXANDER. Alexander, the son of Philip, was 
also admitted to citizenship upon the occasion referred 
to above. The reason which applied to Philip’s case ap- 
plies here also: χαταπολεμήσαντος ᾿Αθηναίους ἐν Χαιρωνείᾳ 
Φιλίππου, πρέσβεις map’ αὐτοῦ ᾿Αθήναζε ἦλθον περὶ εἰρήνης ... 
ὅθεν ἡ πόλις ἐδέξατο [τὴν εἰρήνην] χαὶ τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ, ᾿Αλέξαν- 
Spay, εἰς πολίτας ἐνέγραψεν. After Chaeronea, when the 
bones of the dead were carried back to Athens, Alexander 
went along as one of Philip’s representatives to treat 
with Athens concerning peace.‘** 

CARPHINAS and PHORMIO. A decree of the year 
3838/7 B.C. renewed, in the case of two Acarnanian 
brothers, Carphinas and Phormio, a grant of citizenship 
which had formerly been made to their grandfather 
Phormio. The reason is given as follows: ἐπειδὴ Φορμίων 
nat ΚΚαρ[φί]νας ὄντες πατρό[θεν φίλ]οι tod δήμου τοῦ ᾿Αθηναίων 
διαφυλάττουσιν [τὴν εὔ]νοιαν ἣν οἱ πρόγονοι αὐτοῖς παρέδοσαν πρὸς 
[τὸν δ] ἥμον τὸν ᾿Αθηναίων nat νυνὶ βοηθήσαντες pleta δ[υνά- 
wlews συνχατετάττοντὸ μετὰ ᾿Αθηναίω[ν] χ[αθ]ότι ὁ [στ] ρατης- 
γὸς παραγγέ[λ]λοι. The Acarnanians had been faithful 
allies of the Athenians since the conclusion of an alliance 
between them at the beginning of the Peloponnesian 
war.’**® The battle of Chaeronea (Aug. 338) had been 
fought only a half year before the passing of this decree 
(May 337). The military services of Carphinas and 
Phormio to Athens were no doubt rendered in this en- 
gagement. Acarnania did not send a force, but indi- 
viduals, friends of the Athenians, seem to have come 
voluntarily to their aid. After the battle of Chaeronea 
Philip subdued Acarnania and banished the partisans of 


142 Hampton’s translation. 

143 Schol. Aristid. Panath. p. 178, 16. Cf. Schaefer, op. cit., 
Il, 32, n. 1. 

144 Justin ix. 4. 5. 

145 IG, II’, 237. 

146 Thue. ii. 68. 


52 REASONS FOR GRANTING CITIZENSHIP 


Athens.'*7 Carphinas and Phormio then came to Athens 
for safety and were admitted to citizenship. 

Two persons whose names are un- 
known, an Epidamnian and an Apollonian, were granted 
citizenship in 331/0 B. C.1*8 The reason given is: ἐπ[ειδὴ 
ay on bee ᾿Α]7]γῆνος “Emday[viog nat ...... Ἡγ]ελόχου 
᾿Απολλ[ωὠνιάτης εὖνοί cior]y τῷ δήμῳ τ[ῷ ᾿Αθηναίων nat ἐπι7με- 
λοῦνται τ[ῶν ἀφιχνουμένων ᾽407 ἤνηθεν καὶ π[έρυσιν ....«« «ον ον ] 
ἀνεδέδαξο, “LL dies ὙΦ o's πεμφ] θέντα ὑπὸ ᾿Απ[ολλωνιατῶν ἐπὶ 
τὰς] ναῦς τὰς ᾿Αθην[αίων]. “The decree refers to the re- 
ception accorded certain ambassadors from Athens at 
Epidamnus and Apollonia, and commends the good-will 
shown them by two citizens, one of Epidamnus, and the 
other of Apollonia.’’*° 

CHAEREPHILUS, PHIDON, PAMPHILUS, and 
PHIDIPPUS.  Chaerephilus and his three sons were 
granted citizenship about 325 B. (.:59 and enrolled in the 
deme Paeania.’*! The reason is given by Athenaeus:2°? 
τοσαύτην δ᾽ ᾿Αθηναῖοι σπουδὴν ἐποιοῦντο περὶ τὸ τάριχος, ὡς χαὶ 
πολίτας ἀναγράψαι τοὺς Χαιρεφίλου τοῦ ταριχοπώλου υἱούς. Chae- 
rephilus and his sons were merchants at Athens, and 
famous as importers of salt fish from the Pontus. The 
statement that they were enfranchised because the Athe- 
nians were so fond of salt fish is to be explained by the 
fact that at a time when there was great scarcity at 
Athens (326/5 Β. Ὁ.) 53. Chaerephilus had made large 
distributions of salt fish. 

HARPALUS. MHarpalus, the Macedonian treasurer 
of Alexander, was granted citizenship shortly before 
325/4 B.C.%* Harpalus had given to Charicles, the son- 
in-law of Phocion, the contract for erecting in Attica a 
monument in honor of Pythionica, his mistress, together 


147 Schaefer, op. cit., III, 51. 

148 IG, II’, 350. 

149 Ferguson, Athenian Secretaries, 40. 
150 Din. 1. 48. 

151 IG, II’, 417, 1152; II, 773. 

1562 iii. 119. 

1658 Schaefer, op. cit., III, 296. 

154 Kirchner, op. cit., I, No. 2251. 


REASONS FOR GRANTING CITIZENSHIP δ 


with a large sum of money for the purpose.’ The graft 
from this contract immediately won Charicles’ good-will. 
The friendship of other Athenian public men, also, 
was secured by means of presents.’ Yet, in spite of the 
fact that much of Harpalus’ popularity was due to the 
bribery of public men, the author of the satyric drama, 
Agen, states that he was made a citizen because he had 
sent to Athens large presents of grain: 


καὶ μὴν ἀχούω μυριάδας τὸν “Aomadoyv 
αὐτοῖσι τῶν ᾿Αγῆνος οὐκ ἐλάττονας 
σίτου παραπέμψαι χαὶ πολίτην γεγονέναι 
Γλυχέρας ὁ σῖτος οὗτος ἦν᾽ ἔσται δ᾽ ἴσως 

> ~ 3 / > ε / ? Ul 157 
αὐτοῖσιν ὀλέθρου χοὐχ ἑταίρας ἀρραβῶν. 


This grant is to be explained by the same reason which 
accounts for the honors paid to many other persons dur- 
ing the years immediately preceding.* Before 330 
B.C. Athens began to feel the effects of a scarcity of 
grain.*® In 330 B.C. Demosthenes'® says that in war 
time the necessaries of life had been cheaper and more 
plentiful than under the existing peace. This want be- 
came severe in 330 B.C. and continued until 325 B. C.1*: 
A special fund for the purchase of grain was begun and 
voluntary contributions invited. Demosthenes as one of 
the administrators of the fund contributed a talent. The 
complainant in the speech Against Phormio'® points to 
the fact that he has imported and sold at a moderate price 
ten thousand medimni of grain, and on a second occasion 
contributed a talent to purchase grain for the people. 
These two occasions were 330/29 B.C. and 328/7 B.C. 


155 Plut. Phoc. 22; Paus. i. 37. 4; Dicearch. fr. 72, ed. Didot. 

156 Athen. xiii. 595d ff. 

157 Ibid., 586d. 

158 Schaefer, loc. cit. 

159 Cf. IG, II’, 342 in which certain Tyrians are thanked for 
shipments of grain to Athens. 
- 160 18, 89. 

161 Koehler, MAI, VIII (1883), 221.. 

162 39. 


54 REASONS FOR GRANTING CITIZENSHIP 


The Athenians honored Heraclides, a Salaminian, for 
having sent three thousand medimni of grain at five 
drachmae each (330/29 B.C.), and later for having con- 
tributed to the demos three thousand drachmae for the 
purchase of grain (328/7 B. C.).1% 

EUPHRON. Euphron of Sicyon, the leader of the 
national party in his native city, was granted citizenship 
in 323/2 B.C.1*%* Some years before 323 B.C. he had 
been banished, but he returned before the Lamian war 
and drove out the Macedonian garrison. Through his 
efforts Sicyon was the first Peloponnesian state to join 
Athens in the war against Antipater after the death of 
Alexander. He himself announced this as ambassador. 
These circumstances are given as the reason for granting 
him citizenship: ἐπειδὴ Εὔφρων ᾿Αδέα Σικυώνιος av[ ἣρ διατελεῖ 
ἀγα]θὸς Ov περὶ τὸν δήμον τὸν ᾿Αθηναί[ὡν χαὶ νῦν ἥχων παρ]ὰ 
τοῦ δήμου [τ]οῦ Σιχυωνίων ἐπ[αὐ]γ[ςέλλεται τὴν πόλιν] φίλην καὶ 
σύμμαχον [οὖσ] αν [ἀμυνεῖν (2) χατὰ τῶν πολεμίων τῷ δήμῳ τ[ῷ] 
᾿Αθηναίων [πρώ] τ[ἡ]ν [τῶν ἐν Πελοπονν] yom πόλεων. 

. IG, 115, 398 (ca. 320/19 Β. C.) records a grant 
of citizenship which was made for the following rea- 
sons: ...gdv[y]¢ πα[τρικὴν ἔχων εὔνοιαν πρ]ὸς τὸν δήμο[ν τὸν 
᾿Αθηναίων διατελεῖ χρήσιμοίς Ov καὶ χοινῇ χαὶ ἰδ]ίᾳ τοῖς 
ἀφι[χνουμένοις ᾿Αθηναίω]ν εἰς τὴν ᾿Ασίαν καὶ τοῖς στρατευομένοις 
᾿Αθην[αίων, τῆς δὲ ναυμαχία]ς τῆς ἐν Ἑλλησπόντῳ γενομένης, 
π͵]ολλοὺς διέσῳσεν nat ἐφόδια δοὺ]ς ἀπέστειλε[ν καὶ αἴτιος ἐγέ- 
veto τ]οῦ σωθῆναι [χαὶ χατελθεῖν αὐτοὺς χ͵]αὶ σπάνεως [σίτου 
γενομένης τὸν σ]ῖτον τὸν ἐν [Ἑλλησπόντῳ ἀπέστει7λεν πυρῶν 
μ[|εδίμνους... ᾿Αθήναζε] φανερὰν πο[ιῶν τὴν πρὸς τὸν δήμον] 
φιλοτιμ [αν]. The naval battle in the Hellespont, referred 
to in line 7, was fought in 323/2 B. C. during the Lamian 
war. “When reinforcements were in motion to join Anti- 
pater, a Greek fleet under the command of the Athenian 
admiral Evetion was in position near Abydus. It was, 
however, defeated disastrously in a battle in the straits, 
doubtless by the hundred and ten ships of Antipater, and 


163 IG, II’, 360. Cf. Schaefer, op. cit., ITI, 295, ἢ. 8. 
164 IG, IT’, 448. 


REASONS FOR GRANTING CITIZENSHIP 55 


only part of it succeeded in reaching the Piraeus in 
safety.’ 

ARISTONICUS.  Aristonicus of Carystus, the ball- 
player of Alexander, was granted citizenship in 319/8 
B. C.1%* Unfortunately the general motivation, as well as 
the specific, is missing, but perhaps the phrase τῷ δήμῳ τῷ 
᾿Αθηναίων 1% is part of the general statement of ἀνδραγαθία. 
In Athenaeus'®* we are told that Aristonicus was granted 
citizenship and voted a statue because of his skill as a 
ballplayer: ὅτι ᾿Αριστόνιχον, τὸν Καρύστιον, τὸν ᾿Αλεξάνδρου σφαι- 
οιστήν, ᾿Αθηναῖοι πολίτην ἐποιήσαντο διὰ τὴν τέχνην καὶ ἀνδριάντα 
ἀνέστησαν.199 

EVENOR. Evenor, a physician, was granted citizen- 
ship between 318 and 307 B.C.'"° The reason is as follows: 
[ἐπειδὴ Εὐήνωρ ὁ ἰ]ατρὸς πρότερόν te π[ᾶσαν εὔνοιαν ἀποδέ- 
δ]ειχται τῷ δήμῳ καὶ [χρήσιμον ἑαυτὸν πα]ρέσχηχεν χατὰ τὴν. 
τέχ[νὴν τοῖς δεομένοις] τῶμ πολιτῶν χαὶ τῶν ἄλλων τῶν οἰκούν- 
τῶν ἐν τῇ πόλει καὶ νῦν ἐπι[ δέδωχεν προθύμως ε7ἰς τὴν παρα- 
σχευὴν τάλ[αντον ἀργυρίου]. Though we cannot learn the 
exact connection in which Evenor’s services were ren- 
dered, we are told that he had contributed to the state a 
talent of silver and that he had offered’ his services as a 
physician to the people of Athens.*": 

NEAEUS. Neaeus was granted citizenship about 307 
B. C.” Although the part of the decree which contains 
the specific reason is mutilated, it included contributions 
for military purposes: ἔτι προσεπέδωχε Νεαῖ[ος] τῷ 
δήμῳ ...... ε]ἰς τὸν πόλεμιον.᾽18 
. An ancestor of Telesias of Troezen was 
granted citizenship in 307-301 or 294/3 B.C.'% The rea- 


165 Ferguson, Hellen. Ath., 16 f. 

166 IG, II’, 8385. 

Best Ps os os 

168 i. 19a. 

169 See p. 85. 

170 IG, II’, 374. 

171 Cf. 1G, 1, 483 (804,8 B.C.). 

172 1G; IT’, 558: 

173 Ibid., ll. 9 f. 

174 Wilhelm, MAI, XXXIX (1914), 314. 


56 REASONS FOR GRANTING CITIZENSHIP 


son is stated as follows: διότι --- --- — ἰδίᾳ οἱ Tedectov πρό- 
yov[o]: πολλὰς nat μεγάλας παρέ]σχηνται χρείας ἐν τοῖς ἀν- 
αγχαιοτάτοις καιρ[οἷς συνεργοῦν] τες] nat χοιν[Ὁ] τε τῷ δήμῳ 
nar wat’ ἰδίαν ᾿Αθηναίων ἑχ[άστοις]}. 55 His services were of 
a financial and political character. The grant was made 
“under the Democracy,” and the decree was moved by the 
prominent democrat Stratocles.1” 

NICON. Nicon of Abydus was granted citizenship in 
3803/2 B.C.* The reason is as follows: ἐπειδὴ Νίχων 
᾿Αθυδηνὸς éx παντὸς τοῦ χρόνου εὔνους Ov διατελεῖ τῷ δήμῳ τῷ 
᾿Αθηναίων καὶ τοὺς ἀφιχνουμένους ᾿Αθηναίων εἰς Αβυδον ἰδέᾳ τε 
εὖ ποιῶν διατελεῖ καὶ δημοσίᾳ πράττων ἀγαθὸν ὅ τι δύναται ὑπὲρ 
τῆς πόλεως, χαὶ ἐπὶ τοῦ πολέμου τοῦ προτέρου τῶν Ex τῆς ναυμαχίας 
πολλοὺς τῶν πολιτῶν συνδιέσῳσεν χαὶ ἐφόδια δοὺς ἀπέστειλεν εἰς 
τὴν πόλιν. The naval battle referred to was fought in 
3823/2 B.C. between the Athenian and Macedonian fleets 
near Abydus. The Athenians were disastrously de- 
feated as the inscription implies.+”® 

ALCAEUS. Alcaeus was granted citizenship in 303/2 
B.C.‘ The reason given is: ἐπειδὴ ᾿Αλχαῖος Ἡραί[ο]υ 
Atviog διατρίβων παρὰ τῷ βασιλ[ςε7ἴ Δημητρίῳ διατελεῖ πράττων 
ἀγα[θ]ὸν ὅ τι δύναται nat λόγῳ χαὶ ἔργ[ῳ π]ερί τε τοὺς ἀφιχνου- 
μένους ἰδίᾳ [᾿Αθη]ναίων πρὸς τὸν βασιλέια nat χοι[νῇ] περὶ τὸν 
δήμον τὸν ᾿Αθηναίων. In 305 B.C. Demetrius laid siege to 
Rhodes. During this siege (304 B.C.) his camp was 
visited by an embassy composed of more than fifty envoys 
sent by Athens and other Greek states to induce him to 
make peace with the Rhodians. In 304 B.C. Demetrius 
returned to Athens and drove out the forces of Cassander. 
During the winter of 304 he remained in Athens, and in 
303 he marched into the Peloponnesus. During this 
period Alcaeus made himself of service to Athens at the 
court of Demetrius. 

OXYTHEMIS. Oxythemis of Larisa was granted 


175 IG, II’, 971, ll. 18-18. 

176 Ibid., 1. 21. 

111 IG, II’, 495-518; Wilhelm, op. cit., 271 ff. 
178 Johnson, AJA, XVII (1918), 506-19. 

179 IG, II’, 495. 


REASONS FOR GRANTING CITIZENSHIP 57 


citizenship about 303/2 B.C.'*° The general reason is: 
ἀρετῆς ἕνε[χεν τῆς πρὸς τοὺς β] ασιλεῖς καὶ τὸ[ν δῆμον τὸν ᾿Αθη- 
γα]ίων. He was a favorite of Demetrius and used his in- 
fluence [συναγωνίζεσθαι ἀπροφασίστως τῇ te τῶν] βασιλέων 
προαιρέσει [χαὶ τῇ τῶ]ν Ἑλλήνων ἐλευθερία..8: The exact ser- 
vice which he had rendered is not given, but the decree 
states what he was expected to do after the grant: ὅπως 
ἂν τετιμημένος ὑπὸ τοῦ δήμου [π]ράττῃ καὶ ὑπὲρ τῶν ἱππέων τῶν 
αἰχμαλώτων ὡς ἂν ὑπὲρ πολιτῶν ὅ τι ἂν ὑπολαμβάνῃ cupgée(e) tv 
αὐτοῖς εἰς σωτηρίαν.᾽52 

SOLON. Solon of Bargylia was granted citizenship 
in 808,2 B.C.1** The general character of the services 
which he had performed is shown by the motivation: 
[ἐπειδὴ Σόλ] ὧν Στράτων[ος Βαργυλιήτης διατρίβων παρὰ τ[ῷ 
βασιλεῖ Δημητρίῳ διατ]ελεῖ πράττων ἀγαθὸν ὅ τι δύναται nat] 
λόγῳ καὶ ἔργῳ περί τε τοὺς ἀφιχνουμένους ἰδίᾳ ᾿Αθηναίων πρὸς 
τὸν βα]σιλέα χ[α]7ὶ κοινῇ [περὶ τ]ὸν δῆμον τὸν ᾿Αθηναίων. 5 

HERODORUS. Herodorus was granted citizenship in 
295/4 B. C.*** for the following reason: ἐπειδὴ ᾿Ηρόδωρ[ος 
πρότερόν te] διατρίβων παρ᾽ ᾿Αντιγό[νῳ τῷ Baotre]t εὔνους ἦν τῷ 
δήμῳ τῷ ᾿Αθηναίων κα]ὶ νῦν ἐμ. πίστε(.) ὧν τῷ βα[σιλεῖ Δημης- 
τρί]ῳ ἀγαθὸν ὅ τι δύναται [πράττει nowy] τε ὑπὲρ τῆς πόλεως 
χα[ὶ ἰδίᾳ ὑπὲρ éx]dotov ᾿Αθηναίων ἀεὶ το[ῦ δεομένου, ἀπο] φαί- 
γουσιν δ᾽ αὐτὸν χαὶ [οἱ πρέσβεις οἱ] πεμφθέντες ὑπὲρ τῆς ε[ἰρήνης 
πρὸς τὸ]ν βασιλέα Δημήτριον σ[υναγωνίσασθα7. τῷ δήμῳ εἰς τὸ 
συντ[ελεσθῆναι τήν] τε φιλίαν τὴν πρὸς τὸν [βασιλέα Δημήτριον 
χαὶ ὅπως ἂν ὁ δήμο[ς ἀπαλλαγεὶς το] ῦ πολέμου τὴν ταχίστ[ν καὶ 
χομισάμε7νος τὸ ἄστυ δημοχρατ[ίαν διατελῇ ἔχ]ων.. 8 The im- 
mediate service for which Herodorus was honored occur- 
red when Athens was besieged by Demetrius. Lachares 
the tyrant having defended the city until further opposi- 
tion was useless disguised himself and made his escape. 
The people joyfully admitted Demetrius and sent an em- 


180 JG, IT’, 558. 

181 IJbid., 11. 12-14. 

182 Jbid., 11. 31-36. 

183 Wilhelm, op. cit., 274; IG, II’, 496+507. 
184 Jbid., 11. 10-17. 

185 IG, II’, 646. 

186 Ibid., 11. 8-23. 


58 REASONS FOR GRANTING CITIZENSHIP 


bassy to arrange terms of peace with him. Demetrius 
was very lenient, for, having assembled the citizens in the 
theater, he appointed magistrates who were particularly 
pleasihg to the people. Also, in order to relieve the want 
caused by the siege, he presented the people with one 
hundred thousand medimni of grain.‘** Herodorus was 
instrumental in securing these favorable terms for the 
Athenians.1*® 

AESCHRON. Aeschron was granted citizenship in 
288/7 Β. (.139 for the following reason: [τῇ τοῦ δήμου] 
σωτηρίᾳ [συναγωνιζόμενος διατετέλεχεν καὶ] νῦν τῶν πυλ[αγόρων 
χαὶ τῶν ἄλλων ᾿Αμφιχτιόνων] τῶν ἐν Δελφο[ῖς ἀποφαινόντων τῷ 
δήμῳ ὅτι ἐπὶ] Διοχλέους ἄρχοντος ᾿Αθηναίων τινῶν ἀνδραπο- 
δι]σθῆναι ἐξανγελθέ[ντων προθύμως ἐξῃτ] ἤσατο μετὰ Χαριξέ [νου 
τοῦ τῶν Αἰτωλῶν στρατηγοῦ] καὶ ἄλλους τῶν ἑαυτ[οὔ φίλων παρα- 
χαλεσάμενος ἐ]βιάσατο τοὺς παραν[ομοῦντας καὶ ἐποίησεν τοὺς 
ληφθέντας σωθῆναι nat [τὰ χρήματα τὰ ἁρπασθέντα] ἀποκατέ- 
στησεν αὐτο[ῖς βέβαια μετὰ πάσης ἀσφα͵λείας.᾽ 5 The events 
here narrated took place in 290 B.C. Delphi had fallen 
into Aetolian hands and in the summer of this year the 
Aetolians excluded all adherents of Demetrius, including 
the Athenians, from the Pythian games. Certain Athe- 
nians at Delphi were seized and their property taken. 
Through the efforts of Aeschron and his friends these 
Athenians were liberated and their possessions were re- 
turned. 5 

ARTEMIDORUS. Artemidorus was granted citizen- 
ship in 288/7 B.C. The reason given is as follows: 
ἐπειδὴ ᾿Αρτεμίδωρος ......... ἐμ. πίστει καὶ φιλίᾳ @v βασιλέως 
Λυσιμάχου xat ἀποστελλόμενος ὑπὸ τοῦ βασιλέως Λυσιμάχου πρὸς 
τὸν δῆμον χατὰ τὰς πρεσβε]ίας [εὔνοιαν ἐνδείκνυται τῷ βασιλεῖ] 
Λυσιμάχῳ καὶ τῷ δήμῳ τῷ ᾽Αθ7 ηναίων καὶ [......... ς τὸν βα- 
σιλέα] ἐμ [αν] τὶ καιϊρῷ ..... ζω ζ νιν νος 7 ὑπὲρ τοῦ δήμο[ζυ 


187 Plut. Demetir. 34. 

188 Ferguson, Cornell Studies, X, 4; Hellen. Ath., 184 £4 Plut. 
loc. cit. : 

189 Tarn, Antigonos Gonatas, 418 ff. 

190 IG, IT’, 652, ll. 3-14. 

191 Johnson, AJA, XVIII (1914), 178, 184; 16, II’, 662, 663. 


REASONS FOR GRANTING CITIZENSHIP 59 


ἀγυθὸν 6 τι ἂν δύνητ] αἱ καὶ ταῖς πρεσβε[ίαις ταῖς amoote | λλομέ- 
γαις πρὸς τὸν [βασιλέα συναγων (()ζ7 ται εἰς ὅ τι ἂν αὐτ[ὃν παρα- 
χαλῶσιν].332 After the Macedonian garrison had been 
driven out of the Museum the newly-established National- 
ist government sent out various embassies to solicit aid 
for Athens in view of the expected siege by Demetrius. 
“Philippides went up to the court of Lysimachus in 299/8 
B. C., when he secured a gift of corn for Athens and also 
a mast and sail for the Panathenaic procession (JG, II’, 
657). It is uncertain whether these gifts were obtained 
as a result of one or more visits. Demochares went at 
least twice to the same court, receiving at one time thirty, 
and at another one hundred talents of silver. ... The em- 
bassies of Demochares were sent apparently ca. 288/7 
B.C., not long after his restoration (Tarn, Antigonos 
Gonatas, pp. 92 ff., 416 ff.).”1°%* These embassies are 
probably the ones referred to in the decree,'** in connec- 
tion with which services were rendered by Artemidorus 
to Athens. 

AUDOLEON. Audoleon, king of the Paeonians, re- 
ceived Athenian citizenhsip in 287/6 B.C.‘ The reason 
given is as follows: ἐ[πει]δὴ ὁ Παιόνων β[ασ]τιλεὺς [A ]dd0- 
AL¢@]v ἐκ τῶν ἔμ[π]ροσθε χρόνων ε[ὔν]ους ἐστὶν τῷ δήμῳ τ[ῷ] 
"AOnvaltlov χρείας παρεχόμενο[ς] καὶ συ[ν]εργῶν εἰς τὴν ἐλευ- 
θερ[{1ὰν τῇ [π]όλει καὶ κομισαμένου [t]od δήμ[ο7υ τὸ ἄστυ πυθύ- 
μενος συ[ν] ἤσθη τ[ο] ἴς γεγενημένοις εὐτυχήμασι [ν] νομίζων εἶναι 
χοινὴν καὶ αὐτ[ᾧ] τὴν τῆς πόλεως σωτηρίαν, παρ[ἐ7χετα[ι] δὲ 
χρείας καὶ ἰδίᾳ τοῖ[ς] τε διατρίβουσιν ᾿Αθηναίων πα[ρ]᾽ ἑαυτὸν xat 
τοῖς ἀφιχνουμένο[ι]1ς εἰς τὴν χώραν, δέδωχεν δὲ χαὶ [σΤί[τ7οὺ 
δωρεὰν τῷ δήμῳ pedtuv[ov]¢ ἑπτακισχιλίους xa[t] mevta[x]o- 
σίους Μακεδονίας τοῖς ἰδίοι [ς] ἀναλώμασιν καταστήσας εἰς τ[ο]ὺς 
λιμένας τοὺς τῆς πόλεως, ἐπ[α]νγέλλεται δὲ καὶ εἰς τὸ λοιπὸ[ν] 
παρέξεσθαι χρείας συνεργῶν [ε7ἴς τε τὴν τοῦ Πειραιέως κομιδ[ὴ]ν 
καὶ τὴν τῆς πόλεως ἐλευθερί[α7ν.359 Besides his general 


192 Johnson’s restoration. 
193 Johnson, op. cit., 171 f. 
194 Ll. 2, 7%. 

195 IG, II’, 654, 

196 Jbid., ll. 11-35. 


60 REASONS FOR GRANTING CITIZENSHIP 


attitude of friendliness toward the Athenian State, his 
pleasure at hearing that the Macedonian garrison had 
been driven out and that the Nationalist government was 
in power, and his good treatment of the Athenians who 
lived at his court or happened into his country, the dis- 
tinction conferred upon him is chiefly based upon the 
seventy-five hundred medimni of grain which he hur- 
riedly despatched to Athens after the revolt of the city 
from Demetrius.‘ 

STROMBICHUS. Strombichus received citizenship 
in 280/79 B. C.1 or 282/1 B.C. In this decree the 
reason is given in greater detail than in any other: 
ἐπειδὴ Στρόμβιχος στρατευόμενος πρότερο[ν] mapa Δημητρίῳ καὶ 
χαταλειφθεὶς ἐν τῷ ἄστει μετὰ Σ᾿[πι]νθάρου, λαβόντος τοῦ δήμου τὰ 
ὅπλα ὑπὲρ τῆς ἐλευθ[ερί]ας χαὶ mapaxadrod[v] tog nat τοὺς στρα- 
τιώτας τίθεσθα[ι π]ρὸς thy πόλιν ὑπήχουσεν τῷ δήμῳ εἰς THY 
ἐλευθερίαν [χα]ὶ ἔθετο τὰ ὅπλα μετὰ τῆς πόλεως οἰόμενος δεῖν μὴ 
ἐνίσ[τ] ασθαι τῷ τῆς πόλεως συμφέροντι ἀλλὰ συναίτιος γενέσ[θα7: 
τῇ σωτηρίᾳ, συνεπολιόρχει δὲ χαὶ τὸ Μουσ[εῖ]ον μετὰ [το]ῦ δήμου 
χαὶ συντ[ς]7λεσθέντ]ή ων τῇ πόλει τῶν πρ[α]γμάτω[ν χ]αὶ τὰς 
λοιπὰς χρείας ἀπροφασίστως παρασχόμενος διατ] ετέλεχεν καὶ 
᾿ διαμεμένηκεν ἐν τῇ τοῦ δήμου εὐνοίᾳ, κα]ὶ τοῦ πολέμου γενομένου 
[ἀνὴρ ἀγα[θὺ]ς aly περὶ τὸν δῆμον nal] ἀγωνιζόμενος ὑπ[ὲρ 
αὐτοῦ ἐποίησεν ὅσα παραγγέλλοι ὁ στρατη  γὸς χ| αἱ299 εἰς τὸ λοιπὸν 
ἐπαγγέλλετ]αι χρείας παρέξεσθαι τῷ δήμῳ τῷ ᾿Αθηναίων]. The 
specific service for which Strombichus was honored was 
his assistance in storming the Museum in 288 B.C. In 
the spring of that year Demetrius had marched north to 
meet his opponents, Lysimachus and Pyrrhus, in Mace- 
donia, having left a garrison in the Museum to control 
Athens. Upon the arrival of an Egyptian squadron the 
Nationalist party rose and overthrew the Macedonian 
garrison in an engagement which is described by Pausa- 
nias:?°: “Some time afterwards a few men, bethinking 
them of their forefathers, and of what a change had come 
over the glory of Athens, without more ado put them- 


197 Ferguson, Hellen. Ath., 147; Tarn, op. cit., 101. 
198 IG, II’, 666, 667; Johnson, CPh, IX (1914), 277. 
199 Tarn, JHSt, XL (1920), 158. 

200 Thus far from 666, the rest from 667. 

201 1.26.1 f. 


REASONS FOR GRANTING CITIZENSHIP 61 


selves under the command of Olympiodorus. He led 
them, old men and striplings alike, against the Macedo- 
nians, looking for victory rather to stout hearts than 
strong arms. When the Macedonians marched out to 
meet him he defeated them: they fled to the Museum, and 
he took the place. Thus Athens was freed from the 
Macedonians. All the Athenians fought memorably, but 
Leocritus, son of Protarchus, is said to have been the 
boldest in the action. For he was the first to mount the 
wall and the first to leap into the Museum. He fell in 
the fight and among other marks of honor which the 
Athenians bestowed on him they engraved his name and 
his exploit on his shield, and dedicated it to Zeus of Free- 
dom.”*°? Strombichus, who was an officer of the Mace- 
donian garrison, turned traitor to Demetrius and joined 
the Athenians in storming the Museum.?® 

In JG, 113, 717 (262-230 B.C.) citizenship 
was granted because [τοῖς μὲν ἀποστελλομένοις ὑ]πὸ τοῦ 
δ[ήμου ἀεὶ λέγων καὶ πράττων τὰ συμφέροντ]α τῷ δήμῳ καὶ [ἐν 
παντὶ χαιρῷ τῆς πόλεως πεφρόντ]ιχεν, τοῖς δὲ χρείας [παρεχομέ- 
γοις ὅσοι αὐτὸν παρεχάλ]εσαν ἀπ[ο] δειχνύμεν [ος τήν τε φιλοτιμίαν 
χαὶ τὴν εὔνο] ιαν ἣν ἔχει πρὸς τὴν π[όλιν]. If the word ἀποστελ- 
λομένοις is correctly restored, the person here honored, 
probably an official at a foreign court, had cared for the 
representatives of Athens and had aided them in attain- 
ing the object of their mission. 

ALEXANDER. Alexander, son of Callistratus, a 
Thessalian, was granted citizenship at the end of the 
third century B.C.2* The reason assigned is: ἐπειδὴ 
᾿Αλέξανδρος εὔχρηστον ἑαυτὸν παρασχευάζει nal nowy χαὶ ἰδίᾳ τοῖς 
ἐντυνχάνουσι τῶν πολιτῶν. In 210 B.C. the Athenians joined 
in an embassy to Philip V, who was at Phalara on the 
Malian Gulf. Probably Alexander was a Macedonian 
official and won the gratitude of the Athenians by his 
hospitality and by furthering the interests of Athens at 
court. 


202 Frazer’s translation. 
203 Tarn, Antigonos Gonatas, 96; Ferguson, op. cit., 144 ff. 
204 IG, II’, 850; Wilhelm, op. cit., 298. 


62 REASONS FOR GRANTING CITIZENSHIP 


RHODIANS. In 200 B.C. Attalus and Roman and 
Rhodian envoys met at Athens to try to persuade the 
Athenians to join in an alliance with them against Philip 
of Macedonia. At an ecclesia summoned for the purpose 
Attalus and the Rhodians presented their arguments in 
such a convincing manner that the Athenians immedi- 
ately decreed war against Philip. “They gave the Rho- 
dians also a magnificent reception, and honored their 
state with a crown of valour,” χαὶ πᾶσι ‘Podtors ἰσοπολιτείαν" 5 
ἐψηφίσαντο διὰ τὸ κἀχείνους αὐτοῖς χωρὶς τῶν ἄλλων τάς τε ναῦς 
ἀποχαταστῆσαι τὰς αἰχμαλώτους Ὑενομένας χαὶ τοὺς ἀνδρας.3.5 
This seizure of Athenian warships and their crews was 
made by the Macedonian fleet in 201 B. C., at about the 
time when the raid of the Acarnanians and Macedonians 
into Attica occurred.?”’ 

PHILONIDES and his sons PHILONIDES and DI- 
CAEARCHUS. Sometime before the date of JG, 113, 1236 
(200-150 B.C.) Philonides and his two sons, natives of 
Laodicea, were granted citizenship. The reason is only 
partly preserved: [χαὶ τοῖς παραγενομένοις π] αρὰ τοῦ δήμου 
πρὸς τοὺς βασιλε[ἴς πρεσβευταῖς συνήργει μετὰ σπουδῆς} καὶ διὰ 
ταῦτα HAL τὰς ἄλλας εὐεργεσίας ἃς πο[ιῶν διατετέλεχε τὸν δῆμον 
ἐτίμησεν ὁ δῆμος πολιτείᾳ αὐτόν τε Kat τοὺς bods αὐ τοῦ] .298 

It will be admitted at once that nearly all of these 
grants were made for public service and fall under the 
law of avdpayabta.2°°That such cases as the Plataeans in 


205 Szanto, Griech. Birgerr., 68 f., 79. 

206 Polyb. xvi. 26; Ferguson, op. cit., 272. 

207 Ferguson, op. cit., 268, n. 4. 

208 In the following decrees citizenship was granted for a 
similar reason: JG, II’, 889 (ca. 190 B.C.), 898 (ca. 188/7 B.C.), 
922 (200-168 B.C.), 954 (168-159 B.C.), 979 (168-129 B.C.). 

209 Public-service, or service to the state, did not always 
mean service to the existing government or to the party in power. 
This is most strikingly illustrated by the honors conferred upon 
Thrasybulus, Apollodorus, and Eucles. Philip of Macedon was 
honored after the battle of Chaeronea, when the Macedonian party 
in Athens gained control of affairs through the reaction of feeling 
produced by Philip’s unexpected generosity. Furthermore, one 
political party sometimes canceled the honors which the party pre- 
viously in power had granted cn the ground of public service (cf. 
16, Il’, 6, 9, 52, 448). Public service, therefore, must be under- 
stood as a relative term. 


REASONS FOR GRANTING CITIZENSHIP 63 


519 B.C. and Sadocus in 431 B.C., in which the grant 
was made to the people or the ruler with whom Athens 
contracted an alliance, also come under the law of ἀνδρα- 
γαθία is certain. For there are many cases in which the 
grant is made explicitly under this law to subordinate 
officials who merely conducted the negotiations for the 
parties to the alliance. And Euphron of Sicyon, who led 
his city into an alliance with Athens in 323 B.C., was 
granted citizenship under the law of ἀνδραγαθία. When 
an alliance was formed with a foreign nation citizenship 
was sometimes granted to the people en masse, as in the 
ease of a democracy, or to the ruler, as in the case of a 
monarchy. Accordingly, the law of ἀνδραγαθία was in 
existence throughout the period covered by the foregoing 
grants, i. e., from 519 B. Ὁ. to the second century B. C.?!° 

Having determined the period during which the opera- 
tion of the law of ἀνδραγαθία is proved by actual instances, 
our next inquiry is whether there is any evidence of the 
existence of any other law during this period, especially 
of the Solonian law concerning exiles and permanent 
settlers.?" 

Only the case of Astycrates?2 invites further consider- 
ation. The decree makes no direct reference to ἀνδραγα- 
Ota, but states in the motivation the fact that Astycrates - 
has been exiled. Is this an example of the application 
of the law concerning exiles which was introduced by 
Solon? First let us look at the decree itself. The reason 
given is that Astycrates was exiled, not that he is an ex- 
ile. Further, the motion immediately following the mo- 
tivation annuls the actions brought against Astycrates at 
the time of his banishment: τὰς μὲν [δίκας τὰς x] ατὰ ᾿Αστυ- 
χράτους nat τῶν μετ᾽ [αὐτοῦ γεγε]νημένας ἐν ᾿Αμφιχτίοσιν ἀ[τε- 
λεῖς εἶναι]. The Athenians voted against the opponents 
of Astycrates because he had been exiled παρὰ τοὺς νόμους 


210 Beyond this point evidence is lacking. 

211 The cases of the Thessalians and Andrians (p. 39) and of 
Aristonicus (p. 55) are only apparent exceptions to the law of 
ἀνδραγαθία, as will be shown elsewhere (pp. 85, 88). 

212 JIG, Il’, 109 (8363/2 B. C.). See p. 43. 

218 Ibid., ll. 22-25. 


64 REASONS FOR GRANTING CITIZENSHIP 


τῶν ᾿Α[μ]φ[ιχτιόνων καὶ] τοὺς Δελφῶν." It was not the 
fact that Astycrates was an exile which enlisted the sup- 
port of the Athenians, but the reason for which he had 
been exiled, and this reason must have affected Athenian 
interests. The reason has already been given**® and its 
connection with Athenian interests seems simple. Alex- 
ander of Pherae was an ally of Athens, and when the 
Phocians refused to follow the Thebans against him their 
action worked to the advantage of Athens. So Asty- 
crates and his ten associates supported the Phocians “im 
sicheren Gefiihl der Riickendeckung durch Athen und 
Sparta, vielleicht auch auf deren Veranlassung, gegen 
die phokerfeindliche, mit Boeotien und Thessalien sym- 
pathisierende Hauptmasse der delphischen Biirger.’’*® 
Perhaps the clause, περὶ ὧν λέγει ᾿Αστυχρ[άτης ὁ Δελφὸ]ς nat 
οἱ μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ.327 recounted his services to Athens in this 
connection. Thus the case of Astycrates can be explained 
easily under the law of ἀνδραγαθία. 

Other evidence indicates that this is the correct inter- 
pretation. First, all other grants of citizenship to ex- 
iles, in which a reason is given, were made under the law 
of dadpayabta: Plataeans, 427 B.C.; Pytho and Heracli- 
des, 360 B. C.; Phormio and Carphinas, 338/7 B. C.; and 
Pisithides, ca. 331 B.C. The grant to Pytho and Hera- 
clides was made within three years of that to Astycrates. 
Second, many exiles who sought refuge at Athens were 
honored, but did not receive citizenship. Decrees of this 
class are IG, II?, 12, 38, 37, 81, 109, 211, 218, 226, 237, 
245, 254, 485, 545. Also, the Byzantians who betrayed 
their city to Athens in 389 B.C., when later expelled 
from their country, found an asylum at Athens, but did 
not receive citizenship.*** Even Astycrates’ ten compan- 
ions in exile were not granted citizenship. Third, in al- 
most all decrees in which any honors are granted to ex- 
iles explicit reference is made to their ἀνδραγαθίας. These 


214 Ibid., ll. 17 f. 

215 See p. 48. 

216 Pomtow, op. cit., 94. 
217 IG, II’, 109, ll. 8 f. 
218 Dem, 20. 60. 


REASONS FOR GRANTING CITIZENSHIP 65 


facts show that banishment in itself was not sufficient to 
secure a grant of citizenship, while ἀνδραγαθία was essen- 
tial for all honors. The motivation of JG, II’, 545, in 
which ἀτέλεσις τοῦ μετοίχου was granted to Thessalian ex- 
1165, is an excellent example of this: [ἐπει7 δὴ Θετταλοὶ φίλοι 
b[vze¢ τοῦ δήμου τοῦ ᾿Αθηναίων φ[εύγουσιν ἐξ Θετταλ[ίας]. And 
Demosthenes,”?® in reference to the Byzantians who were 
exiled after 389 B.C., says: ὧν, ὦ ἄνδρες ᾿Αθηναῖοι, μετὰ 
ταῦτ᾽ ἐχπεσόντων, ἐψηφίσασθ᾽ ἅπερ οἶμαι φεύγουσιν εὐεργέταις δι᾽ 
ὑμᾷς προσῆχε, προξενίαν, εὐεργεσίαν, ἀτέλειαν ἁπάντων. Further, 
the experience of two exiles, Apollonides an Olynthian, 
and Pitholaus a Thessalian, makes this point clear. They 
were granted citizenship, but were deprived of that privi- 
lege afterwards. Yet they had not been recalled to their 
native cities; they still remained exiles. They lost their 
distinction because it was proved that they had not 
earned it δι᾿ ἀνδραγαθίαν. Though banishment was the 
occasion of the grant of citizenship or other honor, yet 
the ἀνδραγαθία of the exile was the reason, and, as in the 
case of Astycrates and his companions, the honor be- 
stowed was proportionate to the value of the service ren- 
dered. 

The foregoing evidence shows clearly that the case of 
Astycrates must be classified under the law of ἀνδραγαθία. 
There is, therefore, no positive evidence of the applica- 
tion of the law for exiles in post-Solonian times; and the 
fact that in numerous cases, where the law for exiles 
would have been applied if it had been in use, honors 
were granted to exiles for their ἀνδραγαθία suggests that 
the law for exiles was never used after the introduction of 
the law of ἀνδραγαθία, which was already in operation in 
519 B.C. 

Likewise, there is no positive evidence of the applica- 
tion of the law for permanent settlers during this period. 
Instances of the admission of metics are few in compari- 
son with the total number living at Athens,??4 and those 


219 Loe. cit. 
220 [Dem.] 59. 91; Dem. 9. 56; Aristot. Rhet. 1410a 17. 
221 Clerc, Les Météques Athéniens, 224. 


66 REASONS FOR GRANTING CITIZENSHIP 


who were admitted were taken in on the ground of 
ἀνδραγαθία. Furthermore, various statements point to 
the conclusion that this law also was never used after the 
introduction of the law of ἀνδραγαθία. Lycurgus**? speaks 
of a motion to make ξένοι Athenians in such terms of re- 
proach as would scarcely have been used, had such a 
practice been a regular usage. Xenophon, writing On 
Revenues about the year 353 B.C., recommends various 
ways of attracting foreigners to settle in Athens, and 
suggests various privileges and immunities which might 
be granted to them in order that the state might receive 
an income from the tax imposed on aliens. His sugges- 
tion would be of no value, if permanent settlers, as such, 
were admitted to citizenship. The statement of Diodo- 
rus that permanent settlers, or metics, who enlisted in 
the navy before the battle of Arginusae in 406 B. C., were 
admitted to citizenship makes it appear improbable that 
this law was in operation at that time. Also, note that 
“Themistocles persuaded the people to grant the resident 
aliens and the craftsmen immunity from special bur- 
dens [not citizenship], so that many people might come 
to the city from all parts and they might easily establish 
more crafts.’”?* And lastly the statement of Aristotle?* 
that Clisthenes enrolled in the tribes many ξένους xa! 
δούλους μετοίχους Shows that already at that time the ad- 
mission of permanent settlers had ceased to be a regular 
practice. 

The evidence has led to the inference that the Solonian 
law concerning exiles and permanent settlers was not in 
operation after the introduction of the law of ἀνδραγαθία. 
The wording of the latter law confirms this conclusion. 
The law reads as follows: μὴ ἐξεῖναι ποιήσασθαι ᾿Αθηναῖον ὃν 
ἂν μιὴ δι᾿ ἀνδραγαθίαν εἰς τὸν δῆμον τὸν ᾿Αθηναίων ἄξιον ᾧ γενέσθαι 
πολίτην---“(Παὺ it be not permitted to make anyone an 
Athenian unless he shall be worthy to become a citizen 
on account of his good services to the state.’’?25 Since no 


222 In Leoer. 41 (880 B.C.). 
223 Diodor. xi. 43. 3. 

224 Pol. iii. 12756 37. 

225 [Dem.] 59. 89. 


REASONS FOR GRANTING CITIZENSHIP 67 


one could be made an Athenian unless he was a benefac- 
tor of the state, obviously an exile or permanent settler, 
as such, could not be granted citizenship, but only an 
exile or permanent settler who had proved himself a 
friend of the Athenian State. 

It has been shown that by 519 B.C. the law of ἀνδραγα- 
θία was in operation and the Solonian law had ceased to 
be applied. When we come to inquire at what time in the 
sixth century and by what steps the transition occurred, 
we are treading upon very uncertain ground. We have 
seen that the law of ἀνδραγαθία is restrictive. Further, 
this law is not confined to exiles and permanent settlers, 
yet there is no reference in it to any change in the class 
of persons affected. It seems reasonable to conclude 
from this that the law of ἀνδραγαθία placed a limitation, 
not upon the Solonian law, but upon a subsequent law or 
practice, perhaps a reaction to the ante-Solonian practice. 
Whether it was by custom or by legislation that a more 
liberal policy came into existence after the time of Solon 
is impossible to determine. Solon restricted citizenship 
by birth to children of Athenian parents and limited 
citizenship by grant to foreigners who adopted Athens 
as their future residence, believing in “Athens only for 
the Athenians.” About the time of Damasias the laws 
concerning admission by birth were relaxed, and perhaps 
during the years of disturbance which followed Solon the 
law concerning admission by grant felt the same ten- 
dency. Then, too, the qualification of “permanent settler” 
might easily be abused. If Damasias admitted νόθοι to 
gain supporters,””° the admission of aliens may have been 
resorted to in a similar way for political purposes. Fol- 
lowing this broadening of the Solonian law the law of 
ἀνδραγαθία may have been introduced, without limitation 
of residence, but with a qualification of service. 

The introduction of the law of ἀνδραγαθία marks a dis- 
tinct change of policy, and that change must have been to 
the advantage of the Athenians. An idea of this change 
in conditions may be gathered from the essential differ- 


226 O. Miller, op. cit., 844. 


68 REASONS FOR GRANTING CITIZENSHIP 


ences between the Solonian law and the law of ἀνδραγαθία. 
First, the privileges of citizenship were again thrown 
open to others besides exiles and permanent settlers. This 
may have been done for economic reasons, for many of 
the industrial and commercial leaders whose business 
was essential to Athens did not reside there permanently. 
Among them were “the aliens” who, contrary to Solon’s 
intention when he issued his restriction, may have been 
driven away by such discriminations as the rule that “it 
is not lawful for any alien to traffic in the market” with- 
out paying the aliens’ toll.2?7, It was politic, at least, to 
retain their favor by making them eligible to the privi- 
leges of citizenship, which would be useful as well as 
honorary, and thus to place them on a more equal basis 
with permanent settlers. Second, the substitution of 
ἀνδραγαθία for banishment or permanent settlement as the 
condition of admission to citizenship and the refusal any 
longer to receive exiles and permanent settlers, as such, 
is a very significant fact. We cannot assert that under 
the Solonian law all permanent settlers were admitted to 
citizenship, yet, as no further condition is stated, we 
assume that the proportion was large.2?® Under the law 
of ἀνδραγαθία instances of the admission of metics are few 
in comparison with the total number living at Athens.?”° 
Yet the commercial and industrial opportunities which 

Athens offered to enterprising foreigners drew them — 
thither in increasing numbers. The Athenians continued 
to welcome them and sometimes offered them special in- ~ 
ducements to come, but as a class they were excluded 
from the citizen-body. This fact has a double significance. 
Solon excluded aliens from trafficking in the market in 
order that business might not pass entirely into the hands 
of foreigners.”*° Now, from one point of view, the ad- 
mission of permanent settlers by Solon’s law violated the 
spirit of this principle, but it affected the Athenians in a 
still more sensitive spot, i. e., their political rights. “In- 


227 Dem. 57. 31, 34. 

228 See Clerc, op. cit., 322 f. for contrary view. 
229 Ibid., 224. 

230 Ibid., 334. 


REASONS FOR GRANTING CITIZENSHIP 69 


soferne als die Erweiterung der Zahl der Entscheiden- 
den die Macht des Einzelnen naturgemiass einschrankt, 
ist jede Verleihung zugleich eine Selbsteinschrankung 
der Biirger.’’*! The regular application of such a law 
as Solon’s, which evidently placed the new citizen on a 
level with the old, was certainly not pleasing to the demo- 
cratic element in a small citizen-body,?*? and might have 
become a menace to their political power. Isocrates,?** 
after lamenting the fact that aliens are taking the place 
of the Athenians lost in war, utters this principle: καίτοι 
yon πόλιν μὲν εὐδαιμονίζειν ph τὴν ἐξ ἁπάντων ἀνθρώπων εἰκῇ 
πολλοὺς πολίτας ἀθροίζουσαν, ἀλλὰ τὴν τὸ γένος τῶν ἐξ ἀρχῆς τὴν 
πόλιν οἰκισάντων μᾶλλον τῶν ἄλλων διασώζουσαν. The law of 
ἀνδραγαθία, therefore, was a measure of protection. How- 
ever, this law brought not only a negative, but also a 
positive advantage. Its introduction seems to mark the 
beginning of the importance of the metic class.*** As 
before the class of metics contributed to the industrial 
progress of Athens and to her military strength, but now 
they formed an appreciable source of revenue, for each 
permanent settler was subject to an annual tax which 
went into the Athenian treasury. We do not know when 
the metic tax was instituted, but it is certain that the 
metics were not of importance as a source of revenue un- 
til they ceased to be taken into the citizen-body regularly. 
In view of the character of the results attending the intro- 
duction of the law of ἀνδραγαθία, might it not be assigned 
to the period immediately following the expulsion of Da- 
masias, when the fact that two archons were chosen from 
the Demiurgi shows that the industrial class had gained 
a position of power in the government? 


Grants of Citizenship to Literary Men 


One class of grants requires special consideration be- 
cause at first glance it appears difficult to explain them 


231 Szanto, op. cit., 8. 

232 O. Miller, op. cit., 858. 

283 8. 89. 

234 See Clerc, op. cit., 329-35 for a different view. 


70 REASONS FOR GRANTING CITIZENSHIP 


under the law of ἀνδραγαθία, or public service. The per- 
sons who are honored in these grants belong to the do- 
main of literature. Unfortunately our task is made 
more difficult by the scarcity of the material and by the 
untrustworthy character of much of the evidence which 
we possess. In the first place there is no extant Attic de- 
cree in which citizenship is bestowed upon a person whose 
chief occupation was of a literary character. Further- 
more, we lack any reference to such an event in any 
classical author, and are dependent upon the lexicograph- 
ers and combinations of separate references. Evidence 
of the latter kind is furnished by the application, in dif- 
ferent sources, of different ethnica to the same person. 
A combination of these ethnica will sometimes show that 
the person concerned héd been admitted to citizenship. 
The evidence for the enfranchisement of foreign literary 
men follows, in chronological arrangement. 

DIONYSIUS. A decree**® of 368 B.C. made Diony- 
sius, king of Sicily, an Athenian. He competed at least 
three times in the tragic contests at Athens. However, 
this is not a typical case of the enfranchisement of a poet, 
for Dionysius was primarily a ruler, not a poet, and, as 
we have seen,”** the motive of the grant was purely po- 
litical. 

ANTIPHANES. The comic poet Antiphanes, accord- 
ing to Suidas,”*’ was a native of Ceos, Smyrna, or Rhodes, 
or, according to Anonym. De com.,?** of Larissa in Thes- 
saly. The latter authority also states that he was made 
an Athenian citizen through the agency of Demosthenes. 
This statement is perfectly possible, whether we assign to 
Antiphanes the dates 408/5-334/1 B. C.,2*° or preferably 
388/5-314/0 Β. C.?4° 


235 IG, II’, 103. Cf. Ep. Phil. 10. 

236 Ῥ. 42. 

281 S. v. ᾿Αντιφάνης. 

238 Kaibel, 9. 

239 According to Suidas and Anonym. De com. 

240 Capps, AJPh, XXI (1900), 58; Wilhelm, Urkunden Dra- 
matischer Auffiihrungen in Athen, 55 ff. 


REASONS FOR GRANTING CITIZENSHIP 71 


POLUS. The tragic actor Polus was an Aeginetan.**! 
He was admitted to Athenian citizenship as a Sunian 
about 318-315 B. C.?# 

PHILEMON. The comic poet Philemon was born 
abroad, but later moved to Athens and there received 
citizenship before 307/6 B.C. His birthplace is vari- 
ously given as Syracuse,?** or Soli in Cilicia.4* The 
nature of the evidence favors Syracuse.” The fact of 
his enfranchisement is attested by three sources, in two 
of which he is enrolled in the deme Diomeia.**® 

APOLLODORUS. The case of the Apollodori is dif- 
ficult and much discussion has not cleared it up entirely.?*’ 
Three poets named Apollodorus are mentioned in litera- 
ture, an Athenian,”** a Geloan,**° and a Carystian.?° 
Meineke?*! says that there were two Apollodori, Kaibel?*? 
reduces the number to one, and Capps”? has brought 
proof from the inscriptions in support of Meineke’s 
opinion. The view that there were two Apollodori is the 
more reasonable. Which two are to be identified? 
Chronological considerations make it clear that the Ge- 
loan and the Carystian were different persons.*** The 


241 Plut. Dem. 28. 

242 ἸΙῶλος Χαριχλέους (Luc. Necyom. 16); O’Connor, Chap- 
ters in the History of Actors and Acting in Ancient Greece, p. 128, 
No. 421. But cf. Schaefer, op. cit., I, 244. 

248 ®. μὲν οὖν Δάμωνος Συραχόσιος (Anonym. De com., Kaibel, 
9); B. Συραχόσιος υἱὸς Δάμωνος (Suid. 8. v. Φιλήμων) ; Φ. Δάμω- 
γος Συραχόσιος (16, XIV, 1221). 

244 Strabo xiv. 67. 

245 Cf. Dietze, De Phil. com., 4, n. 6. 

246 IG, Il, 1289 (307/6 B.C.); IG, III, 948 (333 B.C.); 
Anonym. De com., Kaibel, 9. 

247 Meineke, Hist. Crit., 462; Kaibel, Pauly-Wiss., I, 2, 2852, 
s. v. Apollodoros; Capps, op. cit., 45 ff.; Krause, De Apollodoris 
comicis. 

248 Suid. 5. v. ᾿Απολλόδωρος. 

249 Ibid. | 

250 Suid. 5. v. σπουδάζω. Cf. Athen. iii. 125a; vii. 280d. 

251 Loe. cit. 

252 Loc. cit. 

253 Op. cit., 49. 

254 Ibid. 


72 REASONS FOR GRANTING CITIZENSHIP 


fragments quoted from the Athenian poet show that he 
was either the Geloan or the Carystian. Therefore, one 
or the other received Athenian citizenship. The articles 
in Suidas,*** as well as the greater reputation of the Cary- 
stian, suggest that the Athenian and the Carystian are 
identical.?*° 

DIODORUS. The comic poet Diodorus, a native of 
Sinope, is called an Athenian in Auctor Lex. Hermann., 
324.757 In a sepulchral inscription®®* the deme-name 
Σημαχίδης is attached to the name Διόδωρος, while the eth- 
nic appellation Σινωπεύς is attached to the names of his 
father Dio and his brother Diphilus. The identity of 
Diodorus and Diphilus with the comic poets of those 
names is very probable. Considerations of time and na- 
tionality support 10.328. If Diodorus is identical with the 
Diodorus Σινωπεύς who appeared as χωμῳδός at Delos in 
the years 286 and 282 B.C., possibly he did not receive 
his grant of citizenship until after the latter date.?°° 

HERACLITUS. The tragic actor Heraclitus is called 
᾿Αργεῖος in SGDI, 25638, 1. 89 (272 B.C.), and ᾿Αθηναῖος 
in SGDI, 2566, 1.51 (269 B.C.). In each case the 
father’s name is Dio.?* 

CHRYSIPPUS. The Stoic philosopher Chrysippus of 
Soli, son of Apollonius of Tarsus, went to Athens about 
260 B. C., where he became the pupil of Cleanthes. After 
the death of Cleanthes in 232/1 B. C. he succeeded him as 
head of the school. At some time between his arrival at 
Athens and his death in 208/4 B. C. he was admitted to 
citizenship.?° Ξ 


255 8. vv. ᾿Απολλόδωρος ᾿Αθηναῖος and ᾿Απολλόδωρος Γελῶος, 

256 Capps, loc. cit. 

257 Robinson, Ancient Sinope, 270 f.; Capps, AJA, IV (1900), 
83, n. Cf. Wilhelm, op. cit., 60 £. 

258 IG, II, 3343. 

259 Wilhelm, loc. cit. 

260 Capps, op. cit., 88; BCH, VII (1888), 104, 106; Robinson, 
AJPh, XXV (1904), 184 ff.; Ancient Sinope, 270. 

261 Preuner, Delph. Weihgeschenk, 76; O’Connor, op. cit., p. 
99, No. 218. 

262 Plut. De Stoic. rep. 1034a; Pauly-Wiss., III, 2, 2502, 8. v. 
Chrysippos. 


REASONS FOR GRANTING CITIZENSHIP 78 


POLEMON. Polemon, a Stoic philosopher and a 
noted grammarian, lived at the beginning of the second 
century B.C. He was a native of Samos or Sicyon ac- 
cording to Athenaeus,?® or of Ilium according to Sui- 
das.*** He received Athenian citizenship.?* 

CARNEADES. The philosopher Carneades was a na- 
tive of Cyrene?®* and lived from 214/3 to 129/8 B.C. He 
early came to Athens, where he attended the lectures of 
the Stoics. He attached himself to the Academy and 
upon the death of Hegesinus he became head of the school. 
Between 178 and 175 B.C. Attalus and Ariarathes dedi- 
cated to Carneades a statue which bears the inscription, 
Καρνεάδην ᾿Αζηνιέξα." 7 As Carneades was enrolled in the 
deme Azenia he had been admitted to Athenian citizen- 
ship. He became head of the school about 180 B. C. The 
grant occurred between this date and 178-175 Β. C.?° 

DIOMEDES. “The comic poet Diomedes, whose 
-gtatue was set up in the theatre (JG, III, 952), is found 
in an inscription from Magnesia on the Meander (MAI, 
XIX, 96) as A. ᾿Αθηνοδώρου ΠῚ ἐργαμιηνός : but in a dedication 
in his honor found at Epidaurus (Eg. ’Apy. 1883, 27) we 
have A. ᾿Αθηνοδώρου ’AOnvatog.”*°® His Athenian citizen- 
ship is also shown by the fact that as a tragic actor he 
was a representative of the Athenian guild of technitae 
at Delphi in 106 B. C.?”° ) 7 

CAPITO. In a dedicatory inscription?™* found in the 
Athenian theatre the poet Quintus Pompeius Capito is 
called both Ilepyaynvog and ᾿Αθηναῖος. It is very proba- 
ble that Capito was granted Athenian citizenship.?” 


2608 «vi. 234d. 

204 S. v. Tlokepey. 

265 Ibid. 

266 Diog. Laert. iv. 62; Suid. 8. v. Ἰζ αρνεάδης. 

267 IG, II, 1406. 

268 Ferguson, Klio, VIII (1908), 352. 

269 Capps, AJPh, XXI (1900), 47, n. 2. 
_ 270 BCH, XXX (1906), p. 288, No. 50, 1. 34; O’Connor, op. 
cit., p. 72 and p. 92, No. 145. 

271 IG, III, 769. 

272 Capps, loc. cit. 


74 REASONS FOR GRANTING CITIZENSHIP 


There remain a number of cases in which, although the 
circumstances have suggested a grant of citizenship, yet 
the evidence is not sufficiently strong to be accepted as 
conclusive. 

ARISTOPHANES. Suidas? calls Aristophanes a 
Rhodian or Lydian, and cites others as authority for 
Egyptian or Camirean, adding that he was enrolled in 
the citizen-body. Heliodorus?™* says that he was born at 
Naucratis. Furthermore, lines 646-654 of the Acharn- 
ians indicate that there was some connection between 
Aristophanes and Aegina.?7> On the other hand JG, 115. 
865 gives his name under the deme Κυδαθήναιον, and 616, 
6030 gives ’A. Φιλιππίδου ᾿Αθηναῖος. Both the character 
and the weight of the evidence make Aristophanes a 
native Athenian.” 

In only one case is it possible to discern the source of 
the opinion that Aristophanes was not a native Athenian, 
namely, that which assigns him to Aegina. Kaibel?”’ ad- 
vocates the view, restated by Kent?’* that “the most prob- 
able explanation—derived from the scholia—is that 
either he or his father was a cleruch in the division of the 
island amongst Athenian settlers in 431.” Van Leeu- 
wen’ believes that Philip, the father of Aristophanes, 
was one of the Aeginetans who emigrated to Athens and 
there received citizenship a generation before the begin- 
ning of the Peloponnesian war. 

METAGENES. Metagenes, a comic poet contempo- 
rary with Aristophanes, was the son of a slave and also 
an Athenian, according to Suidas.?*° 


218 S. v. ᾿Αριστοφάνης. 

274 Athen. vi. 2296. 

275 Cf. Schol. Achar. 653 f.; Vita Aristoph. in Schol. Aristoph., 
Dibner, xxvii, ll. 32 ff.; Schol. Plato Apol. 196. 

276 ᾿᾽Α. Φιλίππου, τὸ δὲ γένος ᾿Αθηναῖος, τῶν δήμων Κυδαθης- 
γαιεύς, TI ανδιονίδος φυλῆς (Vita Aristoph. in Schol. Aristoph., 
Diibner, xxvii, 11. 1-3); 7A. Φιλίππου, ᾿Αθηναῖος (Anonym. De 
com., Kaibel, 8). 

211 +Pauly-Wiss., II, 1, 971, 8. v. Aristophanes. 

278 CR, XIX (1905), 155. 

279 Proleg. ad Aristoph., 39. 

280 S. v. Μεταγένης. 


REASONS FOR GRANTING CITIZENSHIP 75 


NICOMACHUS. Suidas?*: cites two different persons 
named Nicomachus, one an Alexandrian, the other an 
Athenian. The two are to be identified as one.”*? So we 
are dealing with a Nicomachus ᾿Αλεξανδρεὺς τῆς Τρωιχῆς ἣ 
᾿Αθηναῖος." 58 

DIOCLES. Diocles, the comic poet of the fifth cen- 
tury, bears the double ethnicon ᾿Αθηναῖος ἣ Φλιάσιος.25 | 

MELETUS. Meletus, the father of Socrates’ accuser, 
is called Θρᾷξ γένος." 5 But his son is called Πιτθεύς by 
Diogenes Laertius**® and Plato.78* From these state- 
ments we can conclude nothing as to the enfranchisement 
of Meletus himself, although his family may have been of 
Thracian origin. 

ALEXIS. Suidas?** states two facts concerning 
Alexis’ nationality: (1) he was a Thurian; (2) he was 
the uncle of Menander. Menander was an Athenian citi- 
zen, the son of Diopithes, of the deme Cephisia.?*° If 
both these statements are true, then Alexis may have been 
an Athenian by grant. But the second point, that Alexis 
was Menander’s uncle, is questionable. It may have 
arisen from the fact that Menander was the pupil of 
Alexis.2°° But, even granting the relationship between 
Alexis and Menander, we cannot make out a clear case of 
citizenship by grant. We have no information that Dio- 
pithes was other than a native Athenian. If the family 
was of Italian origin, it was probably the father of Dio- 
pithes and Alexis who was made an Athenian. He emi- 
grated to Athens and received citizenship soon after 


281 8. v. Νιχόμαχος. 

282 Meineke, op. cit., 496, 

288 Krause, op. cit., 11. 

284 Suid. s. v. Διοχλῆς. 

285 Schol. Plato Apol. 188. 

286 ii. 40. 

287 Huthyphr. 2b. 

288 8. v. ἤΑλεξις. 

289 CIG, 6084. 

290 Kaibel, Pauly-Wiss., I, 2, 1468, s. v. Alexis; Kirchner, op. 
cit., I, No. 549. Suidas confuses Alexis with Antiphanes, assign- 
ing Stephanus, the son of Antiphanes, to Alexis. (Anonym. De 
com., Kaibel, 9). 


76 ' REASONS FOR GRANTING CITIZENSHIP 


Dionysius crushed Thurii in 390 B.C. As the children 
are also included in the grant, Diopithes”* and Alexis?®? 
would have been enrolled in the deme of their father as 
Athenian citizens. Then the ethnicon Θούριος used by © 
Suidas could be given no official significance, and not even 
a personal application. Again, if we suppose that Dio- 
pithes himself was granted citizenship—an act which is 
nowhere alluded to—we have no evidence whatever to 
prove that Alexis also received citizenship. Therefore, 
for lack of evidence, Alexis must be left out of the list of 
δημοποίητοι.298 

ARISTODEMUS. The actor Aristodemus was born 
at Metapontum in Italy: Metanovtivog δ᾽ ἦν τὸ γένος. He 
was a member of the Athenian embassy to Philip in 346 
B. C.2 This fact is regarded as conclusive proof—but 
perhaps hastily—that he had received Athenian citizen- 
ship.?*° 

NEOPTOLEMUS. The actor Neoptolemus was a na- 
tive of Scyros: ὁ Νεοπτόλεμος Σχύριος ἦν.2 5: He was active in 
political life, being sent by Philip, together with Aristo- 
demus, to the Athenians with declarations of friendship. 
O’Connor?®* thinks it probable that he was made an Athe- 
nian citizen in view of his influence in bringing the Athe- 
nians to accept the peace with Philip. Kirchner’ states 


the possibility that Neoptolemus was made an Athenian, 


on the ground of Schaefer’s®” assertion that only Athe- 
nian actors might appear on the stage at Athens. How- 


291 Born in 3885/4 B.C. (Kirchner, op. cit., I, No. 4819). 

292 Born in 376 B.C. (Capps, op. cit., 59). 

293 Whether the Alexis ’A\¢&:30¢ ἐξ Οἴου referred to by Steph. 
Byz. (s. νυ. Οἷον) is Alexis the poet we cannot say. Of course 
they can be identical only in case Alexis is not the uncle of Me- 
nander. 

294 Schol. Aeschines 2. 15. 

295 Hypothesis II. 2 to Dem. 19. 

296 Schaefer, op. cit., I, 246; Judeich, Pauly-Wiss., II, 1, 923, 
s. v. Aristodemos; O’Connor, op. cit., p. 82, No. 62. : 

297 Schol. Dem. 5. 6. 

298 Op. cit., p. 119, No. 359. 

299 Op. cit., II, No. 10647. 

300 Op. cit., I, 246. Cf. Van Leeuwen, op. cit., 42. 


REASONS FOR GRANTING CITIZENSHIP 17 


ever, this assumption is groundless, for the Athenian 
victors’-lists show that many members of the Athenian 
guild were not Athenians.*° Kirchner’s**? suggestion 
of a relationship between Neoptolemus of Scyros®®* and 
Neoptolemus the Athenian*” is also problematical. There 
is no conclusive evidence that Neoptolemus was granted 


citizenship. : : 
AMPHIS. In a decree of the year 3332/1 B.C.°% 
Amphis is called an Andrian: λνφις At ...... "Ανδριος. 


The name ἴΑμφις is not Attic.2°° Suidas®”’ calls him an 
Athenian. We cannot include Amphis in the list of 
δηυμοποίητοι unless we are certain that Suidas used the eth- 
nicon in its official sense. 

DIPHILUS. Diphilus was a native of Sinope.*°* On 
the other hand Auctor Lex. Hermann., 324 makes him 
a member of the Athenian deme Σ᾽ημαχίδαι. Evidently 
the latter was deceived by the fact that Diphilus lived at 
Athens, for on his grave-stone he still bore the ethnicon 
Σινωπεύς.399 

SOSITHEUS. Sositheus, a tragic poet of the time of 
Ptolemy II, bears three ethnica: Συραχούσιος ἢ ᾿Αθηναῖος, 
μᾶλλον δὲ ᾿Αλεξανδρεὺς τῆς Τρωικχῆς ᾿Αλεξανρδείας.5 "Ὁ 

HEDYLUS. Hedylus, a poet of the third century 
B. C., is designated as ὁ Σάμιος ἢ ᾿Αθηναῖος by Athenaeus.*"* 

Besides those cases which must be dismissed because 
the evidence is not conclusive, the cases of Metagenes, 
Nicomachus, Diocles, Alexis, Amphis, Sositheus, and 
Hedylus raise a question which must be answered in the 
affirmative before a grant of citizenship may be assumed. 


801 O’Connor, op. cit., p. 72. 

802 Loc. cit. 

303 O’Connor, op. cit., Ὁ. 119, No. 359. 

304 Ibid., p. 120, No. 360. 

305 IG, Il’, 347. 

806 Kirchner, op. cit., I, No. 785. 

307 S. v. ἼΑμφις. 

308 Strabo xii. 8. 11; Anonym. De com., Kaibel, 10. 


309 JIG, II, 3343. Cf. Diodorus on p. 72. 
810 Suid. 5. v. Σωσίθεος. 
311 vii. 297a. 


78 REASONS FOR GRANTING CITIZENSHIP 


Do the lexicographers, particularly Suidas, use ethnica 
consistently in their official sense to denote citizenship in 
the places mentioned? 

This plurality of ethnica arose from the fact that Sui- 
das used several sources, in which he found different na- 
tionalities attributed to the same person. How did this 
difference arise in the sources, and do the ethnica there 
imply citizenship? In some instances it is apparent that 
there was general agreement as to the region from which 
a person had come, the difference resulting from the 
necessity of choosing one of a number of places closely 
situated to one another. Thus Stesichorus is said to 
come from Sicily or Italy; Simonides from Carystus or 
Euboea; Choerilus from Samos, Iasus, or Halicarnassus; 
and Mimnermus from Colophon, Smyrna, or Astypalaea. 

But a more prolific source of the plurality of ethnica is 
to be found in the fact that poets were in the habit of 
traveling from place to place to exhibit their productions. 
Aeschylus, Ion, Alexis, Antiphanes, Diphilus, Diodorus, 
Pratinas, Aristias, Apollodorus, Aristarchus, Achaeus, 
and others changed their place of residence at one time or 
another. In some cases this fact was known and noted ;*!? 
in others the lexicographer confused birthplace and later 
residence, and hence various nationalities were attributed 
to the same person. Thus the Athenian Carcinus was in 
one of the sources of Suidas called Carcinus of Agrigen- 
tum, probably because he spent a great part of his life at 
the court of Dionysius II.*** Phylarchus, called Ναυχρα- 
τίτης in one of the sources of Athenaeus, was an Athenian 
who lived for a time at Naucratis.** 

As Athens was the center of the literary world and as 
it must have been the aim of every ambitious poet to win 
a victory at the Dionysia, foreign poets gathered there in 
greater numbers than in any other place; and conse- 
quently it was but natural that some of them should be 
mistaken for Athenians, especially as the didascalic 


312 Cf. Suid. s. υ. Εὐριπίδης. 
3138 Diog. Laert. ii. 63. 
314 Koehler, RAMPh, LIII (1898), 491, n. 1. 


REASONS FOR GRANTING CITIZENSHIP 79 


records gave no hint as to their nationality. So the 
statement that Sositheus of Alexandria was an Athenian 
may very well have arisen from the fact that he lived at 
Athens and was buried there.**® Nicomachus of Alexan- 
dria Troas received the ethnicon ᾿Αθηναῖος for the same 
reason.*** And Auctor Lex. Hermann.*"* makes a palpa- 
ble error when he calls Diphilus an Athenian.*’® Like- 
wise Suidas*’® calls Diogenes the Cynic an Athenian, 
though he was in fact a citizen of Sinope. The authority 
from whom Suidas drew his information had evidently 
been misled by the fact that Diogenes moved to Athens.*”° 

Since Suidas found the ethnica employed in several 
senses in his sources, we must determine whether he in- 
terpreted and used them correctly. In some instances 
he did so. He tells us that Polygnotus was a Thasian by 
birth and an Athenian by adoption, and that Neophron 
was a Sicyonian by birth and a Macedonian by residence. 
But in many cases he adds no explanation. The accuracy 
of usage in such instances must be determined by his 
methods in general. In the first place, Suidas was care- 
less in copying from his sources, sometimes not even 
taking the trouble to note the nationality which he found 
there. For instance, under Diodorus he cites Athenaeus 
for the names of the plays, but makes no reference to the 
nationality of the poet, although Athenaeus*”! states that 
he was a citizen of Sinope. Again, in copying the eth- 
nica, Suidas sometimes gives his source,*?? and occasion- 
ally gives us his own judgment, influenced either by an 
agreement between a number of the sources or by the 


315 Welcker, Griech. Tragéd., III, 1254 f. 

316 Meineke, op. cit., 498. 

317 «324. 

318 JIG, II, 3348. 

819 S. v. Διογένης. 

820 Krause, op. cit., 9. 

321 x. 4816. 

322 E. 5.» Φιλιστίων Προυσαεύς, ἢ ὡς Φίλων Σαρδανός (Suid. 
8..υ. Φιλιστίων). 


80 REASONS FOR GRANTING CITIZENSHIP 


trustworthiness of a particular source.*?* Errors of 
judgment often led Suidas to incorrect conclusions. When 
several sources gave the same name, but different facts, 
he sometimes grouped all the statements under one 
lemma, thus erroneously identifying two distinct persons, 
as in the case of Hegesippus,*** and of Alcaeus.??> On 
the other hand, when different authorities noted both 
different facts and different nationalities for the same 
person, he sometimes erred by making two persons out of 
one, as happened in the case of Nicomachus.*** There- 
fore, since we have found individual instances in which 
plurality of ethnica did not mean plurality of citizenship, 
and since we have found that Suidas’ general methods 
are careless, we must conclude that Suidas does not use 
ethnica consistently in their official sense to denote citi- 
. zenship in the places mentioned; and when we meet cases 
involving plurality of ethnica about which we possess no 
further information, we are not justified in going so far 
as to assume plurality of citizenship. 

We have found several instances in which citizenship 
was granted to literary men. Can the reason be ex- 
plained under the law of ἀνδραγαθία Ὁ Non-Attic inscrip- 
tions furnish some information with regard to poets. 
Szanto*”’ cites three instances of grants of citizenship to 
poets. Dioscurides was thus honored by Cnossus, Dymas 
by Samothrace, and a poetess of Smyrna by Lamia, be- 
cause they glorified these states in verse. These inscrip- 
tions are late and, as Szanto adds, this political recogni- 
tion of poetical services was in general a product of the 
time after Alexander, for states in the period of their 
decline were more susceptible to flattery. Whether 


823) Οὗ, Ὦλήν, Avpatog ἢ Ὑπερβόρειος 4 Λύχιος, μᾶλλον δὲ 
Λύχιος ἀπὸ Ξάνθου, ὡς δηλοῖ Καλλίμαχος xat ὁ ΤΠ ολυΐστωρ ἐν 
τοῖς περὶ Λυχίας (Suid. 5.υ. ᾿Ωληήν) ; Φύλαρχος, ᾿Αθηναῖος ἣ Nav- 
χρατίτης [following Athenaeus ] * οἱ δὲ Σικυώνιον, ἄλλοι δὲ Αἰγύπ- 
τιον (Suid. 8. υ. Φύλαρχος). 

824 Meineke, op. cit., 475. 

325 Pauly-Wiss., I, 2, 1506, s. v. Alkaios. 

326 Meineke, op. cit., 496. 

327 Op. cit., 48. 


REAASONS FOR GRANTING CITIZENSHIP 81 


Athens followed the practice of smaller states in thus re- 
warding the poetical effusions of a eulogistic character, 
either in the fifth and fourth centuries, or in this later 
period, we do not know absolutely. It is not at all likely 
that such a practice existed in the earlier period at any 
rate. Indeed, a precedent like this, once established by 
Athens, could not have failed to call forth a grand out- 
burst of praise, and either the practice or the persons 
benefited by it would certainly have been lashed by the 
caustic tongue of some comic poet. 

What, then, was the reason for these grants of citizen- 
ship? The facts which bear on this question are of 
three different classes and furnish three possible answers. 

When Aristodemus the actor, who was in Philip’s good 
graces, was about to depart for Macedonia to participate 
in the Olympic festival there, the Athenians commis- 
sioned him to treat with Philip for the release of the cap- 
tives taken at Olynthus in 348 B.C. Upon his return to 
Athens in 347 he reported to both the senate and the as- 
sembly the kind feeling of Philip toward the Athenians 
and his desire for peace. He was even credited with be- 
ing the originator of the peace. For the successful exe- 
cution of his mission Demosthenes moved to crown Aris- 
todemus.*** He was then chosen a member of the em- 
bassy sent to arrange terms of peace with Philip, and a 
special measure was passed to prevent his suffering finan- 
cial loss through the breaking of professional engage- 
ments. Cicero*”® refers to the great political influence 
of Aristodemus: Aristodemum, tragicum item actorem, 
maximis de rebus pacis et belli legatum ad Philippum 
Athenienses saepe miserunt. 

The comic poet Philippides was praised and voted a 
golden crown and a bronze statue in recognition of his 
many political services to the Athenians. The motiva- 
tion of these honors shows how varied and long continued 
- these services were. As an intimate of King Lysimachus 
he was of particular value to the Athenian government 


828 Aeschines 2, 17. 
329 De re pub. iv. 11. 


82 REASONS FOR GRANTING CITIZENSHIP 


in its relations with Thrace. His services include such 
things as a gift of grain to the people in 299/8 B.C., at 
his own expense burying Athenians killed in battle, ob- 
taining the release of prisoners of war, securing enrol- 
ment in divisions of the army for those who wished to 
enter military service and providing clothing and travel- 
ing expenses for those who preferred to depart, service 
to the cause of Athenian freedom, giving his personal in- 
terest and financial aid to the religious festivals, sacri- 
fices, and games, and assisting every Athenian who ap- 
pealed to him.**° 

Aristodemus and Philippides were not exceptional 
cases. Actors and poets did not surrender themselves to 
their art. Neoptolemus was sent by Philip along with 
Aristodemus to the Athenians with declarations of 
friendship, and he too was influential in bringing about 
the peace with Philip. Ischander, who had friends in 
Arcadia, ‘““‘was brought by Aeschines before the Athenian 
senate and ecclesia to present certain political proposals 
from them.” Sophocles took an active part in public life; 
Theognis was one of the Thirty; and Morsimus strove to 
improve the physical, as well as to entertain the aesthetic, 
side of man. Such instances might be multiplied. In 
fact, literary men occupied a unique position as regards 
their ability to render public service. They were mem- 
bers of a privileged class whose profession was a pass- 
port which secured for them freedom of travel during 
time of peace or war. They were favorably received 
even at the court of their nation’s enemy.**! They were 
no stay-at-homes, for the duties of their profession called 
them from city to city. Of course they were familiar 
figures at Athens, possessed a thorough knowledge of 
Athenian life, both public and private, rubbed elbows 
with the common Athenian on the street, talked politics 
with the politicians, and discussed governmental policies 
with the leading magistrates. And yet they often main- 
tained the closest relations with their native countries, in 


330 IG, Il’, 657 (287/6 B.C. or 285/4 B.C.). 
331 Hypothesis II. 2 to Dem. 19; Dem. 5. 6. 


— 


REASONS FOR GRANTING CITIZENSHIP _ 83 


some cases continuing to reside there, or at least divid- 
ing the year between Athens and their own cities. And 
they were among the most distinguished men of their re- 
spective nations. Ion is ranked as one of the greatest of 
the Chians. It was quite natural that men so eminently 
fitted should be chosen to perform some ambassadorial 
function. They may have been commissioned by the 
Athenians to attend to sundry matters connected with 
their respective states, or they themselves may have 
made such good use of their advantageous position to ren- 
der public service as to win the gratitude of the Athe- 
nians. Since this gratitude found expression in the be- 
stowal of other honors, there is every reason to believe 
that members of this class were as eligible as any others 
to receive citizenship in recognition of public service in 
the political, field. 

The second set of facts bearing on the reason for grants 
of citizenship to literary men affects actors and poets 
- especially. 

In 716, 113, 223B, ll. 7-8 (3848/2 B.C.) the senate is 
commended and crowned ἐπειδὴ —— — χαλῶς nat δικαίως 
ἐπε [μελή]θη [τῆς εὐχοσμίας tod θεάτρου In IG, 115, 551 
(before 309/8 B.C.) a flute-player is praised and crowned 
[ἐπειδὴ Νιχόστρ]ατος διατελεῖ περ[ὶ τὸν ἀγῶνα τὸν Δι]7ονυσίων 
φιλοτιμο[ύμενος καὶ περὶ τ] ἣν αὐτοῦ ἐπιμέλεια [ν χαὶ τοῖς χορηγο]ῖς 
τοῖς atet χορηγο[ῦσιν προθύμως ὑϊπηρετῶν τὰ περὶ τοὺϊς θεούς]. 
Honors were granted in these two cases for services ren- 
dered to the gods. 

In JG, 1135, 1186 (ca. 450 B.C.)» Damasias, a Theban 
schoolmaster at Eleusis, is praised and crowned ene [10%] 
se οἰ[κήσ] ας Ἐλευσῖνι κόσμιός τε ὦ [ν] StatetLeA]exe καὶ 
φιλανθρώπως ἔχει πρὸς πάντ[ α]ς τοὺς ἐν τῷ δήμῳ οἰκοῦντας, καὶ 
α[ὐτ]ὸς χαὶ οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ, καὶ Διονύσ[τα π]οιοῦντων ᾿Ἔλευσι- 
νίων ἐσπούδασε[ν χ]αὶ ἐφιλοτιμήθη πρὸς τοὺς θεοὺς xLat τ]ὸν 
δῆμον τὸν ᾿Αθηναίων καὶ Ἔϊλευσιν[(ων], ὅπως ὡς κάλλιστα γένη- 
ται τὰ Διονύ[σ]ια, καὶ παρασχευάσας τοῖς αὑτοῦ τέλ[εσ7: χοροὺς 
δύο, τὸν μὲν παίδων, τὸν δὲ ἀν [δ] ρῶν ἐπέδωχεν τῇ Δήμητρι [x] αἱ τῇ 
Koen χαὶ τῷ Διονύσῳ. In IG, II’, 410 (ca. 880 B.C.) the 
priests of Dionysus are honored ἐπιμελείας [ἕνεχα] τῆς περὶ 
τὰ ἱερά. In the former decree Damasias’ ambition to see 


84 REASONS FOR GRANTING CITIZENSHIP 


the Dionysia as splendid as possible and his contribution 
of money and effort to make the festival such were con- 
sidered a service not only to the gods (πρὸς τοὺς θεούς), 
but also to the state (πρὸς τὸν δῆμον τὸν ᾿Αθηναίων). In the 
second decree the service which was rendered by the 
priests in connection with the sacrifices to the gods was 
similarly regarded as a service to the state, for the sacri- 
fices were offered ὑπὲρ τῆς βουλῆς καὶ τοῦ δήμου τοῦ ᾿Αθηναίων. 
So the honor was granted not only for service to the gods 
but also ἀρετῆς ἕνεχα χαὶ δικαιοσύνης τῆς εἰς τὴν βουλὴν χαὶ TOV 
δῆμον τὸν ᾿Αθηναίων.333 

To come to the cases under consideration, we find that 
actors also were honored for their services at the Diony- 
sia. In JG, 112, 348 (3831/0 B.C.) an actor is praised 
ἐπειδὴ —-—-— [τοῖς te Διονυσίοις dxexolivat[o φιλοτίμως ἔν τε 
τοῖς ἄλλοις ἐ]7στὶ [ν ἀνὴρ ἀγαθὸς περὶ ᾿Αθηναίους] .32 35. In JG, 11, 
429 (after 8586.,5 B.C.) an actor is praised [ἐπειδὴ --- — — 
χρείας διατελεῖ mlage[yousvog τοῖς χορηγοῖς το]ῖς αὐτο[ῦ αὐτὸς 
διδάσκων τε χαὶ] ὑποχρινόϊμενος τὰ αὑτοῦ δράματ] α χαὶ οὐδέ [ποτε 
παραλείπων τὸν] ἀγῶνα τὸν Δ[ιονυσίων αἰεί τι ποι] ςεῖ ἀγαθὸν [καὶ 
λόγῳ καὶ ἔργῳ καὶ] κοινῇ [χαὶ ἰδίᾳ τόν τε δῆμον τὸν] "AOn[v] a 
[tov]. The exact restoration is doubtful, but the connec- 
tion with the Dionysia is certain.*** Here again service 
rendered to the gods is regarded as a service to the state. 
In 76, II’, 347 (3832/1 B. 6.) 3385 the comic poet Amphis is 
praised and crowned [ἐ]πειδὴ ——— διατελεῖ ε[ὔνους. ὧν 
<Ol]y> τῷ δήμῳ τῷ "AOL yvatov nal]i νῦν χαὶ ἐν τῷ παρ[ελης- 
λυθό]τι χρόνῳ, and ἀρ[ετῆΐς ἕνεχα χαὶ διχ] αιοσύν [Ὡς]. Al- 
though the motivation:contains no reference to the Diony- 
sia, the fact that the crown was to be of ivy implies such a 
connection.*** If that is true, it is fair to assume that his 
services were rendered in the line of his profession. Since 
the services of the senate, flute-players, chorus-trainers, 
priests, and actors in connection with the Dionysia were 
recognized by the state as evidence of their ἀνδραγαθία, it 


882 Cf. IG, II’, 354 (328/7 B.C.). 

333 O’Connor, op. cit., p. 126, No. 396; Wilhelm, op. cit., 219. 
334 Wilhelm, op. cit., 221; O’Connor, loc. cit. 

335 Wilhelm, MAI, XV (1890), 219. 

336 Ibid., 221; Urk. Dram., 59. 


REASONS FOR GRANTING CITIZENSHIP 85 


would have been strange indeed, if such recognition had 
not been given to poets, whose dramas contributed more 
than anything else to the glory of the festival. Can we go 
so far as to say that this recognition took the form of a 
grant of citizenship? The case of Aristonicus will show 
that we can. Aristonicus, the Carystian ball-player of the 
time of Alexander the Great, was granted citizenship and 
voted a statue διὰ τὴν téyvny.*87 IG, 11:, 385 (819,8 B.C.) 
records this grant of citizenship.*** Although the stone 
is so badly mutilated that the specific service cannot be 
determined, yet there is enough left to show that it con- 
tained a general reference to the ἀνδραγαθία of Aristoni- 
cus. But in what way did the state regard his skilful 
ball-playing as an evidence of his ἀνδραγαθία, or as a pub- 
lic service? Manifestly because he displayed his skill at. 
some public exhibition, and the only public exhibition 
which meets the conditions is a national festival. Aris- 
tonicus performed at the Panathenaea, perhaps, where 
exhibitions of physical skill and strength played a promi- 
nent part. By his skilful performance he entertained 
the people assembled and contributed to the success of 
the festival. Thus he rendered a public service for which 
he received citizenship. Therefore, we can readily be- 
lieve that poets and actors were granted citizenship like- 
wise διὰ τὴν τέχνην in connection with a national festival. 

A third reason, probably a development of the preced- 
ing and a product of the fourth century, is suggested by 
the following incident. About 350 B.C. the oligarchs 
overthrew the democracy at Mytilene and exiled many of 
the democrats. Some time later they magnanimously 
recalled most of the exiles. Agenor, a distinguished 
musician and formerly the instructor of Isocrates’ grand- 
sons, was an exile, but was not recalled. So Isocrates, at 
the urgent request of his grandsons, wrote a letter to the 
government of Mytilene begging for the recall of Agenor. 
After commending the moderation of the Mytilenean 
government toward the exiles, Isocrates**® continues with 


337 Athen. i. 19a. 
338 See p. 55. 
339 Ep. 8. 4. 


86 REASONS FOR GRANTING CITIZENSHIP 


his argument thus: οὐ μὴν ἀλλ᾽ εἰ καὶ μιηδὲν ὑμῖν ἔδοξε τούτων 
unde προσεδέχεσθε μηδένα τῶν φυγάδων, τούτους γε νομίζω συμφέ- 
pctv ὑμῖν κατάγειν. αἰσχρὸν γὰρ τὴν μὲν πόλιν ὑμῶν ὑπὸ πάντων 
ὁμολογεῖσθαι μουσικωτάτην εἶναι χαὶ τοὺς ὀνομαστοτάτους ἐν αὐτῇ 
παρ᾽ ὑμῖν τυγχάνειν γεγονότας, τὸν δὲ προέχοντα τῶν νῦν ὄντων περὶ 
τὴν ἱστορίαν τῆς παιδείας ταύτης φεύγειν ἐχ τῆς τοιαύτης πόλεως, 
χαὶ τοὺς μὲν ἄλλους “EAAnvag τοὺς διαφέροντας περί τι τῶν καλῶν 
ἐπιτηδευμάτων, %aY μηδὲν προσήχωσι, ποιεῖσθαι πολίτας, ὑμᾶς δὲ 
τοὺς εὐδοχιμοῦντάς τε παρὰ τοῖς ἄλλοις χαὶ μετασχόντας τῆς αὐτῆς 
φύσεως περιορᾶν παρ᾽ ἑτέροις μετοιχοῦντας. Isocrates seems 
to refer to a general practice when he says that the rest 
of the Greeks admit to citizenship those who are distin- 
guished in τὰ χαλὰ ἐπιτηδεύματα. And being an Athenian 
he would naturally use an Athenian custom as an ex- 
ample. This practice may appear inconsistent with a 
qualification of past service. It was, in so far as any 
tangible service is concerned. But, indirectly, persons 
who were distinguished in ‘the fine arts” did render 
some service to the state. As Isocrates**® says: ὧν [ém- 
στημῶν] ἐνθυμουμένους χρὴ τοὺς νοῦν ἔχοντας περὶ πλείστου μὲν 
ποιεῖσθαι τοὺς χαλῶς χαὶ δικαίως tHE αὑτῶν πόλεως ἐπιστατοῦν- 
τας, δευτέρους. δὲ τοὺς τιμὴν χαὶ δόξαν αὐτῇ χαλιὴν συμβαλέσθαι 
δυναμένους" ἅπαντες γὰρ ὥσπερ δείγματι τοῖς τοιούτοις “χρώμενοι χαὶ 
τοὺς ἄλλους τοὺς συμπολιτευομένους ὁμοίους εἶναι τούτοις νομίζου- 
σιν. This third reason may have been applied to such 
cases as Carneades, where the grant of citizenship prob- 
ably was not based upon any definite act of public service. 
Grants based upon this reason, like all the others, would — 
give the ἀνδραγαθία of the new citizen as the motivation. 


340 Ep. 8. 6. ΓΕ | Oo Boe get ἘΚ ΡΩΝ 


wal 


CHAPTER IV 
PURPOSE OF THE GRANT OF CITIZENSHIP 


᾿Ανδραγαθία εἰς τὸν δῆμον was the officially recognized 
basis for granting citizenship in the cases reviewed, and 
ἀνδραγαθία was shown by specific services of various kinds. 
From the viewpoint of the individual they were the re- 
quirements which he was compelled to satisfy in order 
to be eligible for citizenship. Now in the case of the en- 
franchisement of Thessalians and Andrians,' referred to 
by Andocides,” the reason assigned, δι᾿ ἀπορίαν ἀνδρῶν, obvi- 
ously does not refer to any condition which was fulfilled 
by the individuals. Rather, Andocides is giving the rea- 
son for the grant as seen from the viewpoint of the state. 
Let us consider this side of the question next, i. e., the 
purpose of the state in admitting aliens to citizenship on 
the condition of ἀνδραγαθία. 

Two motives, which operated under different condi- 
tions, actuated the state in granting citizenship to large 
masses of people who already dwelt within its borders. 

Enrolment of citizens en masse was sometimes used as 
the solution of social and economic problems which arose 
as the principles of democracy spread and the life of the 
nation broadened. Such a general grant of citizenship 
was made by Clisthenes.*® 

Again, this method was used as a remedy when the 
number of the citizen-body had diminished greatly (δι᾽ 
ἀπορίαν ἀνδρῶν). There is a certain minimum below 
which the number of citizens may not fall, if the func- 
tions of government are to be administered properly. 
This minimum is often reached during the course of a 
long and bloody war. At such times the granting of 
citizenship to aliens may become of the utmost import- 
ance as affording a means by which the decimated citi- 
zen-body may be increased and brought up to a number 


1 See p. 39. 
2 ἢ, 149. 
3 Aristot. Pol. iii. 12756 37; Ath. Pol. 21. 


87 


88 PURPOSE OF THE GRANT OF CITIZENSHIP 


adequate to continue the various functions of the state. 
Thus toward the close of the Peloponnesian war, when 
battle and disease had so thinned the ranks of citizens 
that Athens was no longer able to continue the operations 
of war on a large scale, metics and foreigners were en- 
franchised in order to secure enough men to man the 
fleet before the battle of Arginusae.* And after the fall 
of Athens vacancies caused by war were filled by the 
creation of new citizens. Andocides refers to this prac- 
tice in connection with the Thessalians and Andrians.*® 
In the latter instance it is certainly true, as Szanto® says, 
that the official motivation of the grant was ἀνδραγαθία 
πρὸς τὸν δῆμον. 

Grants to individuals, however, were looked upon in a 
different light. That they were not made to augment a 
decimated citizen-body is shown by the fact that no law 
required the recipient to become a citizen de facto, or in 
any way to change his relation to his native state. 

The purpose of the state in conferring citizenship in 
such cases bears a close relation to the conditions which 
made its acquisition possible. Public service was the 
officially recognized requirement for citizenship, and the 
state held out its franchise as a reward in order to gain 
such service. This purpose is first expressed, in a decree 
of citizenship, in JG, 113, 222 of the year 331 B. Ὁ. or later, 
where citizenship is granted [ὅπως ἀ]ν εἰδῶσιν ἅπαντ[ς] ς ὅτι 
0 δῆμος [ὁ AD] ηναίων ἀποδίδωσιν χάριτας μι[εὙ] ἄάλας τοῖς εὐεργε- 
τοῦσιν εἰαυτὸ[ν χαὶ] διαμένουσιν ἐπὶ τῆς εὐνοίας το]ῦ δήμου. 
For the same purpose the honors were proclaimed at the 
Dionysia,® and the decree was published [ὅπως δ᾽ ἂν εἰδῶσι 
χαὶ] οἱ ἄλλοι [ὅ]7 τι χάριτας ἀποδίδωσιν ὁ δῆμ]7ος [τ]οῖς ἑ[α70- 
τ[ὸν εὐεργετοῦσι ἀξίας. That the state hoped to arouse 
emulation on the part of others by thus conferring honors 
and advertising the fact is expressed more pointedly in a 


See p. 36. 

See p. 39. : 

Szanto, Untersuch. i. d. att. Biirgerr., 30. 
Ll. 11-16. 

Dem. 18. 120. 

IG, II’, 391, ll. 10-12 (821/0-819/8 B. C.). 


Ὁ Οὦ -2 ὃ σι 


PURPOSE OF THE GRANT OF CITIZENSHIP 89 


formula which occurs first, in one form, in JG, 1132, 553 
(ca. 307 B.C.) : ὅπως ἂν χ[αἱ] of ἄλλοι π[άντες φιλοτιμιῶν] ται 
πρὸς τὸν δῆμον τὸν [᾿Αθηναίων εἰδότες ὅτι χάρι]τ[α]ς αὐτ[οῖ]ς 
[ἀποδίδωσιν] .19 

Persons who received minor honors were often urged 
to render further services in the hope of receiving fur- 
ther honors. Citizenship: was thus promised in a general 
way. Sometimes a definite service was stipulated upon 
the fulfilment of which specific rewards were promised, 
as in IG, 11’, 791 (ca. 232/1 B.C.) : τοὺς βουλομένους τῶ[ν 
πολιτῶν χαὶ τῶν GA] λων τῶν οἰχούντων ἐν τῇ πόλει ἐπιδιδόναι εἰς 
τὴν σωτηρία]ν τῆς πόλεως Kal τὴν φυλαχὴν τῆς χώρας ἐ[ παγγεί- 
λασθαι τῇ β]ουλῇ ἢ πρὸς τοὺς στρατηγοὺς ἀπογράψασθαι ἐντὸς 
μηνὸς Μο]υνιχιῶνος" μὴ ἐξέστω δὲ μιηθενὶ ἐπιδοῦνα[Ξ πλέον HH 
δραχμιῶν] wd? ἔλαττον [V* εἶναι δὲ τοῖς ἐπιδοῦσι [στεφανωθῆναί te 
χα]ὶ ἐπαινεθῆναι καὶ τιμνηθῆναι ὑπὸ τοῦ δήμ[ου καθότι ἂν ἢ ἄξι7ος 
ἕχαστος αὐτῶν. In the same way before the battle of 
Arginusae citizenship was promised to all metics and 
other foreigners who should volunteer to enlist in the 
Athenian forces.*? And frequently the person to whom 
citizenship was granted was invited to strive for further 
honors by a continuance of his good works: εἶναι δὲ a[d7@ 
χαὶ εἰς τὸν με] τὰ ταῦτα χρόνον διατηροῦντ[ι τὴν αὐτὴν ato leow 
εὑρέσθαι παρὰ τῆς [βο]υλ[ ἧς χαὶ τοῦ δήμ])ου χαὶ ἄλλο ἀγαθόν, 
ὅτου &lv] δοχ[ἢ ἄξιος εἶναι] .18 

Not only did the state promise citizenship on condition 
of the performance of a certain service, but it went even 
further and granted citizenship at least partly upon the 
promise of future services. This is the case with Oxy- 
themis, whose honor is based not only upon past services, 
but also upon the expectation of others in the future: 
ὅπως ἂν τετιμημένος ὑπὸ τοῦ δήμου [π]ράττῃ καὶ ὑπὲρ τῶν ἱππέων 
τῶν αἰχμαλώτων ὡς ἂν ὑπὲρ πολιτῶν ὅ τι ἂν ὑπολαμβάνῃ συμφέ- 
o(e)v αὐτοῖς εἰς σωτηρίαν. And during the fourth century 


10 Li. 18-20. 

11 Li. 15-22. 

12 Diodor. xiii. 97. 

13 IG, 11’, 856, 11. 8-11. 

14 IG, Il’, 558, 11. 31-36 (ca. 8303/2 B.C.). 


90 PURPOSE OF THE GRANT OF CITIZENSHIP 


frequent literary references are made to the practice of 
granting citizenship to persons who had performed no 
marked service toward the state, but whose influence 
-was so great that their co-operation would be of great 
benefit if their friendship could be secured. More than 
that, even men who had formerly been enemies of the 
state were honored with citizenship. In speaking of 
Charidemus Demosthenes" says: “All other men who 
have ever obtained a grant from you have been honored 
for services rendered; this is the only one of all who has 
been honored for abortive attempts to injure you.” Cer- 
tainly the act for which Charidemus was made a citizen 
was not a hostile one, yet it seems to be true that he had 
been guilty of acting against the interests of the Athe- 
nian State. Again Demosthenes says: “I did not see 
that any tremendous evil would befall you if you forgave 
a man all his offenses and invited him to render you ser- 
vices in the future, for in your crowning him and making 
him a citizen both these things were involved.” The 
grant was held out to the recipient as a sop. It was ex- 
pected that, like Sadocus, he would henceforth regard 
himself as an Athenian and the rest of the Athenians as 
his fellow citizens, and that in consequence he would be 
ever active and zealous to promote the interests of 
Athens. 

In granting citizenship, therefore, the Athenians were 
not actuated by an altruistic desire to share with foreign- 
ers the rights and privileges which they themselves en- 
joyed. The Solonian law had aimed to supply the local 
need of business men and industrial workers. It had, it 
is true, admitted these men to citizenship, but from selfish 
motives; for the admission of each new citizen made the 
privileges of the former ones less, a result which of 
course would be more noticeable in a small citizen-body. 
Likewise in establishing ἀνδραγαθία as the condition of 
citizenship the motive of the state was a selfish one, to 


15 23. 185. 
16 28, 188. 
17 Cf. [Dem.] 13, 24. 


PURPOSE OF THE GRANT OF CITIZENSHIP 91 


profit by the service rendered before the grant, and also 
to secure the continual good-will of the new citizen and 
to incite others to imitate him. 

The result of this policy was that the state over- 
reached itself. While ἀνδραγαθία continued to be recog- 
nized officially as the condition of citizenship, the spirit 
of the law was lost. The qualification of public service 
became less and less strictly enforced as the motive of 
the grant, i. e., the hope of future benefit, assumed 
greater importance than the requirement of past service. 
This led to the admission of persons who had done no 
particular service to the state, and also of those who, 
though they had performed some service, had done so in- 
cidentally and in the furtherance of their own interests, 
as did Pytho and Heraclides, who slew Cotys, not to rid 
Athens of a relentless foe, but to avenge their father.'® 

Laxity in the application of the rule was accompanied _ 
by practices which steadily depreciated the value of the 
grant. Demosthenes’? contrasts its worthlessness in his 
day with its value in the early part of the fifth century, 
when men were willing to render important services in 
order to acquire it. The increase in the frequency of 
grants was one of the factors which contributed to this 
result. Isocrates®° says: “It is our pride and boast that 
we are of nobler descent than others, but we are more 
ready to share this distinction with any who desire it than 
the Triballians or Leucanians are to share their ignoble 
origin.” This prodigality lessened the value of the grant 
because, as the number of individuals who received the 
honor increased, the significance which each attached to 
the distinction became less.21. The value of the grant was 
depreciated also by the corrupt practices which grew up 
in connection with the introduction and passing of de- 
crees of citizenship, and which made bribery a more ef- 
fective means of securing the grant than good services. 


18 Aristot. Pol. v. 1811b 20-22; Schaefer, Dem. u. 8. Zeit’, I, 
157. 

19 238. 200. 

20 8. 50. 

21 Schoeman, Griech. Alterth., I, 374. 


92 PURPOSE OF THE GRANT OF CITIZENSHIP 


Thus Demosthenes”? declares that “not only has the gift 
of the commonwealth become vile and contemptible, but 
all have become so through the wickedness of the detest- 
able orators who draw up these decrees without scruple. 
who have carried their disgraceful cupidity to such an 
excess that, like men who put up wretched trumpery for 
auction, they sell your honors and rewards at the cheapest 
prices, drawing for a number of people on the same 
terms any decree they like to have.” Again he says:** 
“Now, my countrymen, it [citizenship] is exposed for 
common sale; the most abandoned of mankind, the slaves 
of slaves, are permitted to pay down the price and at once 
obtain it.”24 The mercenary general Charidemus seems 
to have kept paid agents at Athens to propose honorary 
votes in his favor.2>. When through corrupt practices 
men of worthless character were admitted, the offer of 
citizenship became a questionable honor. 

Entire faith cannot be placed in the charges brought 
by one litigant against another, yet it is no doubt true 
that persons obtained citizenship by bribery. In this re- 
spect the custom of granting citizenship and other honors 
in return for contributions to the state exercised an un- 
wholesome influence. Citizenship was granted for gifts 
of war materials, grain, etc., to the state, and also for 
contributions toward the purchase of such necessities. 
The earliest extant decree of citizenship which refers to 
this practice was passed in 321/0-319/8 B. C.,”° but there 
is earlier inscriptional evidence of the existence of this 
practice in connection with other honors, and there are 
literary notices of its earlier existence in connection with 
grants of citizenship. The heavy expense and trouble 
which were met by those who sought the gift of citizen- 
ship are referred to in the speech Against Neaera.”” Un- 
scrupulous men who had charge of such funds or the ob- 


22 28. 200. 

28 Ibid., 196. 

24 Cf. [Dem.] 18. 24; Andoc. 2. 28. 
25 Dem. 28. 185 f. 

26 IG, II’, 391. 

27 13. 


~~ — μ 


PURPOSE OF THE GRANT OF CITIZENSHIP 93 


jects for which they were contributed undoubtedly found 
an opportunity for private gain or party advancement. 
With such purposes in view corrupt men pushed through 
certain cases of citizenship. Outright illegal purchase 
of citizenship by paying a member of the assembly or 
senate to champion one’s case represents the last and 
most unvarnished phase in the development of bribery in 
connection with grants of citizenship. 

We have seen that the motive of the state in granting 
citizenship was a purely selfish one, that it led to laxity 
in the application of the rule, and that the consequent 
frequency of the grant and corrupt practices depreciated 
_ the value of the grant. Let us next consider to what de- 
gree the purpose of the state was realized. 

In so far as citizenship was granted to persons who had 
already served the state because of their attachment to 
it, particularly if they affiliated themselves with it, the 
purpose of the grant was realized. Evagoras is a strik- 
ing example of a man who remained true to his adoptive 
state even through the period of its greatest misfortunes. 
After the disastrous outcome of the battle of Aegospo- 
tami Conon fled to Evagoras for refuge, “selecting him 
out of all because he thought that, by taking refuge with 
him, he would find the greatest personal security, and at 
the same time the most speedy assistance for the city.’’® 
For seven years Conon remained at the court of Eva- 
goras, which by this time had become a general place of 
asylum for Greeks who found conditions in their home 
cities intolerable. It was largely through his influence 
at the Persian court that the King provided money for 
the equipment of the fleet which won the great victory of 
Cnidus over the Lacedaemonians in 394 B.C. “While it 
took place under the command of Conon, it was Evagoras 
who made it possible and provided the greater part of 
the forces.” In return for these further services the 
Athenians conferred the highest honors upon him, set- 
ting up his statue in the same place where the statue of 
Zeus the Preserver stood. 


28 Isoc. 9.52. Cf. Xen. Hell. ii. 1. 29; Diodor. xiii. 106. 


94 PURPOSE OF THE GRANT OF CITIZENSHIP 


Persons who, before they were made Athenians, had 
shown no particular favor toward Athens afterwards be- 
came loyal to the state. At the beginning of the Pelo- 
ponnesian war Sadocus, son of Sitalces, was made an 
Athenian in connection with the conclusion of an alliance 
between Athens and Thrace. Later, when Lacedaemo- 
nian ambassadors went to Sitalces to persuade him to 
leave the Athenian alliance and to aid Potidaea which 
was being besieged by the Athenians, Sadocus was in- 
duced by the Athenian representatives to surrender the 
Spartans to them on the ground that, as he had become 
an Athenian citizen, it was now his patriotic duty to pre- 
vent the Lacedaemonian ambassadors from securing fur- 
ther aid against his adoptive state. 

Even men who had formerly been enemies of Athens 
rendered her valuable services, once they had been 
honored with citizenship. In 349 B.C., when Phocion 
had crossed over into Euboea to co-operate with the trai- 
torous Plutarch, Callias the leader of the Chalcidians de- 
clared war against Athens, and aided by a Macedonian 
force placed Phocion in a most precarious position, from 
which he was rescued only by the intrepidity of his men, 
Callias then took refuge with Philip. But in 341/0 B. C., 
after Callias had become the ally of Athens and had re- 
ceived citizenship, he assisted Athenians under Phocion 
in liberating Oreus and Eretria. In the Euboic synod 
which was then established Callias was the champion of 
Athens and the enemy of Philip. He canvassed the Pelo- 
ponnesus in an effort to organize a confederacy against 
Philip. The latter in his letter to the Athenians called 
him their general and complained of his aggressions. In 
such cases as this it is evident that the change of attitude 
of the recipient of citizenship was not caused by the 
grant itself, but by a change of the direction in which his 
own interests lay; of this change of interest the grant is 
merely the indication. However the state intended the 
grant to bind securely the newly-made ties of friendship. 

On the other hand the purpose of the state was not 
always realized, for it is easy to find instances of subse- 
quent disloyalty on the part of new citizens. Pytho of 


PURPOSE OF THE GRANT OF CITIZENSHIP 95 


Aenus who slew Cotys king of Thrace, an enemy of the 
Athenians, fled to Athens and received citizenship; yet 
he afterwards went over to her enemy, Philip of Mace- 
don. 

About 367 B. C. Philiscus of Abydus was granted citi- 
zenship in connection with Ariobarzanes whose lieuten- 
ant he was. After that he seems to have aided the Athe- 
nians in the Hellespont and to have given pay to the 
mercenaries in Perinthus, but according to Demosthe- 
nes*® he later changed his attitude, got possession of 
Greek cities, took up his quarters in them, and committed 
such outrages that he was finally slain by two citizens of 
Lampsacus. The assasins fled to Lesbos where they 
were left undisturbed by the Athenians because Philiscus, 
although he had been made an Athenian, had become the 
enemy of Athens. 

Cotys, king of Thrace, furnishes a still more striking 
example of disloyalty. He was made an Athenian some- 
time prior to 365 B.C. How well his subsequent conduct 
harmonized with his early professions is shown clearly 
by Demosthenes®® who says: “Cotys, whenever he was 
engaged in quarrels, sent ambassadors and was ready to 
do anything and perceived then how contrary to his in- 
terest it was to go to war with Athens; but as soon as he 
was master of Thrace, then he would attack cities and 
encroach upon us, then he would vent his drunken fury 
upon himself first and us next, then he was for conquer- 
ing the whole country.” We might be inclined to regard 
Demosthenes’ description as too exaggerated, were it not 
for the fact that, when Cotys showed himself to be an 
impious reprobate and loaded the Athenians with in- 
juries, they made his assassins citizens and bestowed 
crowns of gold upon them as benefactors. 

In this connection mention should be made of Charide- 
mus, the mercenary general of Thrace. After having 
received Athenian citizenship he crossed into Asia, where 
he soon got into trouble with the satrap Artabazus. He 


29 23. 141. 
80 28. 114, 


96 PURPOSE OF THE GRANT OF CITIZENSHIP 


then sent the Athenians a letter in which he promised to 
recover the Chersonese for them, if they should send him 
ships to enable him to escape from Asia. But, having 
been released unexpectedly by Artabazus, so far from 
fulfilling his promise or respecting his position as an 
Athenian citizen, he again entered the service of Cotys 
and laid siege to the Athenian strongholds Crithote and 
Elaeus. Demosthenes claims that even his letter was not 
sincere, but calculated to deceive the Athenians, and that 
the Abydenes and Sestians, enemies of Athens, were 
aware of his schemes; for, had they really thought that 
his overtures to Athens were made in sincerity, they 
would never have received him and permitted his passage 
across the Hellespont. After the death of Cotys, instead 
of co-operating with the Athenian general Cephisodotus, 
he continued to make war upon Athens for seven months. 
He attacked an Athenian force which had landed in the 
harbor of Perinthus, and afterwards, when Cephisodotus 
had sailed to the Chersonese to clear the promontory of 
Alopeconnesus of the pirates who infested it, Charidemus 
marched down upon the Athenians and forced Cephiso- 
dotus into a convention which was repudiated immedi- 
ately at Athens. He then captured Miltocythes, who 
was friendly to Athens, and delivered him and his son to 
the Cardians, who put them to a horrible death. Having 
thus aroused his enemies to more aggressive action he 
was finally drawn into an agreement with Athenodorus. 
But when the latter disbanded his forces Charidemus 
broke his agreement and forced Chabrias to accept even 
more disgraceful terms than he had imposed upon Cephi- 
sodotus. It was only when Chares was sent out with a 
mercenary force that Charidemus was brought to terms. 
“Since then,” continues Demosthenes, “as long as your 
force was in the Hellespont, he has continued to flatter 
and amuse you; but no sooner did he find the Hellespont 
freed from the presence of a force, than he set himself to 
destroy and dethrone the two princes and get the whole 
kingdom into his own power, knowing by experience that, 
until he expels them, it is not possible to break any part 
of his compact with you.” After making all due allow- 


PURPOSE OF THE GRANT OF CITIZENSHIP 97 


ance for the exaggeration of an accuser, the facts show 
clearly that Charidemus held the tie of citizenship very 
lightly. π 

Such new citizens did not have the welfare of Athens 
at heart and their attitude toward their adoptive state 
was therefore determined by their own advantage. The 
result was as Demosthenes* says: ‘Those who have no 
love or admiration for your institutions, but regard only 
the advantage which they get by appearing to be honored 
by you, they, I expect, or rather I am quite certain, when- 
ever they spy a hope of greater advantage elsewhere, will 
run after that without troubling themselves in the least 
about you.” And in another connection he declares to 
the Athenians that their adopted citizens have done them 
more mischief than open enemies,*? which shows that 
“these distinctions are no longer sufficient, but unless you © 
guard the persons of each of these men, there is no 
thanks, it would seem, for what you have done before.”** 
Even a foreigner, Philip of Macedon, noticed this situa- 
tion and commented upon it in his letter to the Athenians, 
saying that “of the persons who received such gifts [as 
-citizenship] none have the least regard for your laws and 
decrees.’’** 

But the new citizens should not receive all the blame 
for this condition. The Athenians themselves had de- 
generated and the fourth century found them Jacking in 
many of the qualities which had contributed to the glory 
of their ancestors. The impassioned but ineffective ap- 
peals of Demosthenes bear sad testimony to a great de- 
cline in spirit. The author of the Fourth Philippic ex- 
presses his view when he says: ‘‘Your interests are sold 
on every favorable opportunity; you partake of the idle- 
ness and ease under the charm whereof you resent not 
your wrongs, while other persons get the reward.’ It 
was no uncommon thing to find that even Athenian citi- 


81 28. 126. 

82 Ibid., 200. 

88 Ibid., 203. 

84 Ep. Phil. 10. 
85 [Dem.] 10. 54. 


98 PURPOSE OF THE GRANT OF CITIZENSHIP 


zens themselves looked upon loyalty to their own state as 
an elastic quality. Public men at home were in the ser- 
vice of Philip, and commanders in the field were guilty of 
disobedience. Philocrates sold himself and the interests 
of Athens to Macedon; Iphicrates, commander of the 
forces in Thrace, though he not only was an Athenian 
citizen by birth, but alsc had been honored with a bronze 
statue, maintenance in the prytaneum, and other distinc- 
tions, yet dared to fight in defense of Cotys against Athe- 
nian commanders at sea. In the fourth century men’s 
vision, like that of Isocrates, broadened out beyond the 
limits of their own little states; their interests were no 
longer always identical with those of their own cities; 
the citizen no longer felt himself indissolubly bound to 
his country.*® When the local patriotism of Athenians 
themselves was declining, a similar tendency on the part 
of new citizens is not to be wondered at. 

The most practical reason why many of the persons 
who were honored with citizenship showed no loyalty to- 
ward their adoptive state was the fact that they did not 
come to Athens to live and consequently were not enrolled 
in the citizen-body. In Solon’s time citizenship was 
granted only to persons who had severed relations with 
their own states through banishment or voluntary migra- 
tion and had settled permanently at Athens. So long as 
new citizens moved to Athens and affiliated themselves 
with the Athenian State, their permanent allegiance was 
assured. The law of ἀνδραγαθία, however, sought to honor 
not only those who assisted in the local development of 
Athens, but also those who helped to promote her foreign 
interests, which were becoming more and more import- 
ant. Thus Perdiccas the Macedonian and Menon the 
Pharsalian were granted citizenship because of valuable 
military services rendered to Athens abroad. Neither 
ruler is known to have moved to Athens to exercise his 
new privilege. In these instances, the earliest recorded 
grants of citizenship to individuals in historical times, 
the new citizens did not exercise the privileges of citizen- 
ship. In such cases citizenship was largely nominal and 


36 Cf. Diog. Laert. ii. 7; Plut. De exilio 5; Cic. Tuse. v. 37. 


PURPOSE OF THE GRANT OF CITIZENSHIP 99 


the grant was a mark of distinction carrying with it an 
honorary title. Honorary citizens did not feel the bond 
of personal touch with Athenian life which Demosthenes 
deemed so essential when he said: “1 consider, O Athe- 
nians, that all persons who desire to become citizens out 
of love for our customs and our laws, on being admitted 
to these would at the same time settle among us and par- 
take of the benefits which they coveted.’’?? 

Although honorary citizens did not affiliate themselves 
with the state, they were nevertheless called πολῖται, not 
ξένοι, and were officially regarded as such. Demosthe- 
nes** argues that Charidemus should be treated as a citi- 
zen: “You must look what is the position of the man in 
whose favor the decree has been moved; whether he is an 
alien, or a resident alien, or a citizen. If we call him a 
resident alien, we shall not be speaking the truth; if an 
alien, we shall not be acting justly; for the people’s grant, 
by which he has become a citizen, ought to stand good. 
We must treat him, therefore, in argument, it seems, as 
a citizen.” There is also inscriptional evidence in sup- 
port of this view. Euphron of Sicyon, who was honored 
with citizenship in 323 B. C., did not exercise the grant, 
for he remained leader of the democratic party in Sicyon. 
After his death his son was taken under the guardianship 
of the Athenian State, just as the children of Athenian 
citizens who fell in battle: καὶ νῦν δὲ χ[αθότι emp] ércrav 
ἔσχηχεν ὁ δῆμος τοῦ παιδίου tod Εὔφρον[ος]. The two decrees 
passed in honor οὗ Euphron afford the best illustration. 
In the grant he is called Εὔφρων ᾿Αδέα Σικυώνιος, while in 
the decree passed after his death we find Εὔφρων ὁ ᾿Αδέα τοῦ 
Σιχυωνίου. From the fact that in the first inscription the 
ethnicon agrees with Euphron and in the second with 
Adeas Wilamowitz*® draws the conclusion that “da er nie 
von seinem biirgerrechte gebrauch gemacht hatte, besass 
er kein demotikon, aber ein Sykionier war er ftir die Athe- 
ner rechtlich auch nicht mehr.” Although Wilamowitz 
may be correct in his interpretation, yet the Athenians 


37 Dem. 23. 126. 

38 28. 23. 

39 IG, Il’, 448, 11. 77 f. 

40 Aristot. u. Athen, II, 175. 


100 PURPOSE OF THE GRANT OF CITIZENSHIP 


were certainly not consistent in observing this distinction 
in the application of ethnica in inscriptions. When the 
Samians were made Athenians in 405 B. C. they retained 
citizenship in their own state and were still called Σάμιοι, 
as were also Eumachus and Poses who as ambassadors 
were included in the grant. And it seems very probable 
that the original nationality of Alcimachus is given in a 
decree which was passed in his honor over ten years after 
he had received citizenship: [εἶν] αν ᾿Αλχιμάχῳ ᾿Αλ[κχιμάχου 
᾿Απολλων:}7 ἀτῃ. This is certainly true in the case of 
Spartocus IV, who is called Βοσπόριος in the same decree 
in which it is stated that he had previously been made a 
citizen.*? Since the decrees for Euphron and Alcimachus 
were passed in 318/7 Β. C. and 321/0-319/8 B. C. respec- 
tively, the official usage seems to have employed both 
forms of expression at the same period. In literary 
references either ethnicon is given to the new citizen, 
generally however his original one. Thus Thucydides** 
speaks of Σάδοχον τὸν γεγενημένον ᾿Αθηναῖον, but Xenophon* 
calls Philiscus ᾿Αβυδηνός, Lysias*® calls Apollodorus ὁ Meya- 
ρεύς, and Aeschines** calls Callias 6 Χαλκιδεύς. 

The fact that a new citizen might not utilize his grant 
immediately did not invalidate it, for if at some later 
time circumstances made it desirable for him to become 
an Athenian citizen de facto he could do so. In such 
cases a decree was passed confirming the previous grant, 
as [εἶν] αἱ ᾿Αλχιμάχῳ ᾿Αλ[κχιμάχου ᾿Απολλων!]} ἀτῃ xuptay τὴν 
π[ολιτείαν ἣν ὁ δῆμο]ς ἔδωχεν αὐτῷ χα[ὶ ἐχγόνοις ἐπὶ Nino] χρά- 
τους ἄρχοντ[ος] .*7 


41 IG, II’, 391. 

42 IG, II’, 653. Philonides is called a Laodicean in a decree in 
which it is stated that he and his two sons had received citizenship 
(16, II’, 1236 200-150 B. C.). 


48 ii. 67. 2. 
44 Hell. vii. 1, 27. 
45 7. 4. 


46 3. 86, 89, 94. 

47 IG, II’, 391. Cf. IG, Il’, 226, 8860, 448. A grant to Aryb- 
bas was also confirmed at a later date, but JG, II’, 226, in which 
reference is made to it, is not the decree of confirmation, but a sub- 
sequent one: [ἐπειδὴ --- ἣ πολιτ]εία ἡ δοθ[εἴ7]σα [τῷ πατρὶ χα] 
τῷ πάππῳ walt αἱ ἄλλαι Slopeatindoyfolvol: καὶ αὐτῷ nal τοῖς 
éxyovoltle nat εἰσι χύριαι. 


PURPOSE OF THE GRANT OF CITIZENSHIP 101 


A grant of citizenship included not only the individual 
honored, but also his descendants (καὶ τοῖς ἐχγόνοις). Even 
if the grant was allowed to lie unused till after the death 
of the recipient, his descendants were admitted to citizen- 
ship by a renewal of the grant. This hereditary claim, 
as well as their own good services, was mentioned in the 
motivation, as in the case of Carphinas and Phormio: 
[ἐπειδὴ δὲ Φορ[μ]ίωνα τὸν Φορμίωνος καὶ Καρ[φ]7(ν[α πάππο]ν 
ἐποιήσατο ᾿Αθηναῖον ὁ δῆμος ὁ ᾿Αθηναίων κ[αὶ τ]οὺ[ς] ἐχείνου 
ἐχ [γόνους καὶ τὸ ψήφισμα χαθ᾽ ὃ H [π]|οίη[σι]ς ἐγένετο ἀνα- 
Ὑ[Γέγρ] πται ἐν ἀκροπόλει, εἶ[να!] Φορ[μ]ίων[ἰ- χ]α[] ΚΚαρ- 
φί[νᾳ] καὶ τοῖς ἐχγόνοις αὐτῶν χυρίαϊν τὴ]ν [δωρει7 ὰν ἣν 
[ἔδωχ 7 εν ὁ δῇ[μ.]ος Φορμίωνι τῷ πάππῳ [α7[τ]ῶν ;5 and also 
in the case of Archippus: [ἐπειδὴ δὲ χαὶ ὁ πατὴρ] αὐτοῦ 
᾿Αθηνα[ίων φίλος ἦν χαὶ ἔδωχεν adt]G ὁ δήμο[ς τὴν πολιτείαν, 
εἶναι χαὶ αὐτ] ὃν "Ap[y]im[mov καὶ τοὺς ἐκγόνους ’AOnvato ug. 

Since the grant remained valid even though the new 
vitizen postponed its exercise, it follows that, whether he 
intended to reside at Athens or not, no difference was 
made in the form of the grant. The full formula was 
preserved, even to the clause providing for enrolment into 
tribe, deme, and phratry. Besides, while in other states 
proxema and politeia, the functions of which could not 
be exercised simultaneously, were conferred in the same 
decree, thus showing that these names had practically 
become mere titles of distinction; yet at Athens their 
original meaning was kept in mind so carefully that they 
are nowhere found granted together.*° Each grant of 
citizenship was potential. Therefore it is impossible to 
determine from the form of the decree whether the new 
citizen exercised his grant or not. It is obvious, how- 
ever, that under ordinary circumstances such persons as 
foreign rulers, public officials, and representatives of for- 
eign governments did not do so. 


48 IG, II*, 237, ll. 15-21; cf. 212. 
49 IG, II*, 336a, 11. 15-19. 
50 Szanto, Griech. Birgerr., 22. 


CHAPTER V 
POETS OF FOREIGN NATIONALITY AT ATTIC FESTIVALS 


In assigning a reason why dramatic poets were admit- 
ted to citizenship it was assumed that they were permit- 
ted to produce plays at Athens. This is the view of 
Bergk:' “Ebenso wenig ist die Ansicht Neuerer gerecht- 
fertigt, Auslander hatten keinen Chor erhalten: wie man 
lyrische Dichter ohne alle Ausnahme zuliess, so auch dra- 
matische.” Wilhelm? concurs in this view. Meineke* 
presents the opposite opinion: “Peregrinis autem, ante- 
quam civitati adscripti essent, in publicis Bacchicorum 
sacrorum solemnibus fabulas in certamen committendi 
potestatem factam esse, nullis puto argumentis doceri 
potest.” Van Leeuwen’s‘ view is a compromise: “Dix- 
eris igitur liberum etiam poetis peregrinis ad certamina 
publica fuisse aditum, ea tamen lege ut docerent quidem 
suas fabulas vel carmina, sed non ipsi in se reciperent 
histrionis vel cantoris officium. Primitus igitur, cum 
primas in suis dramatis partes ipsi poetae solebant agere, 
a certaminibus publicis peregrinos fuisse exclusos, dein 
vero, cum actoribus rem permittere solerent, per leges 
nihil obstitisse quominus cum poetis civibus certarent.” 
This view is based upon the assumption that “histriones 
cives fuisse,’’> which O’Connor* has shown to be incorrect. 

This question may be settled most easily by a review 
of the individual cases. It should be stated first that of 
the other participants in dramatic contests foreigners 
were admitted as choregi and actors, but were excluded 
from the chorus.’ Following is a list of dramatic poets, 


Griech. Litt. Gesch., 111, 51, n. 169. 
Urk. Dram., δή. 
Hist. Crit., 808. 
Proleg. ad Aristoph., 42 f. 
Ibid. 
Chapters in the History of Actors and Acting in Ancient 
Greece, p. 72. 
7 Plut. Phoc. 30. Cf. Dem. 21. 56; Andoc, 4. 20; Aristoph. 
Ran. 729. 


artraond ke 


102 


POETS OF FOREIGN NATIONALITY AT ATTIC FESTIVALS 103 


chronologically arranged, who produced plays at Athens, 
but were of foreign birth and, so far as our information 
goes, never received Athenian citizenship. 

Pratinas gained one victory and contended against 
Aeschylus and Choerilus. Yet he was a citizen of Phlius® 
and died such, for his son is called Φλιάσιος by Athenaeus.? 

Aristias, besides being a Phliasian, was buried at 
Phlius.*° He took second prize in the contest with 
Aeschylus and Polyphrasmon in 467 B.C.,* and com- 
peted with Sophocles.’ The name Aristias is also re- 
stored in the list of victors at the City Dionysia.*® 

Aristarchus, a contemporary of Euripides, was a native 
of Tegea.‘* His tragedies twice took first prize.'® 

Ion, the son of Orthomenes, was a Chian.’® An Attic 
inscription in the Ionic dialect, which records a dedication 
to Artemis, bears the name Ion and is to be referred to a 
foreigner.*’ Ion came to Athens when still a young man" 
and began to exhibit about the middle of the fifth century. 
When Sophocles was sailing to Lesbos as general in 440 
B. C, he stopped off at Chios, where he was entertained by 
Hermesilaus. Ion was invited to meet Sophocles. So it ap- 
pears that after he had contended at Athens he kept up 
his relations with his native country and perhaps con- 
tinued to reside there for part of the year. Strabo’ 
mentions him among the famous men of Chios. At a 
later date, 428 B.C., he won third place in competition 


8 Φλιάσιος (Suid. 5. v. Πρατίνας; Athen. xiv. 6170). 

9 xv. 686a. 

10 Paus. ii. 3. 5. 

11 Argum. Aeschylus Septem. 

12 Vita Soph. ed. Westermann, 131. 

13 IG, II, 977a; Wilhelm, op. cit., 100, 108. 

14 Schol. Soph. Oed. Col. 1820; Suid. s. v. ᾿Αρίσταρχος. 

15 Suid. loc. cit. 

16 Athen. x. 449d; xi. 496c; Plut. Thes. 20; Paus. v. 14. 9; 
Schol. Aristoph. Pax 830; Suid. 5. νυ. Ἴων. 

17 Ditt., Syll.*, 18. 

18 Plut. Cim. 9. 

19 xiv. 1. 35. 


104 POETS OF FOREIGN NATIONALITY AT ATTIC FESTIVALS 


with Euripides and Iophon,?° and on one occasion cap- 
tured the first prize.** 

Achaeus, one of the five great tragic poets in the early 
canon, was a native of Eretria.??. As a writer of Satyric 
dramas he was considered inferior only to Aeschylus. He 
matched his plays against those of Euripides and Sopho- 
cles, but won only one victory. 

Hegemon, a poet who flourished during the Peloponne- 
sian war, was a Thasian.2? Though he went to Athens 
he maintained his relations with Thasos, which he called 
his home.*4 Chameleon of Pontus relates that after He- 
gemon had returned from Athens to Thasos he was sum- 
moned back to the former place to answer a legal charge. 
That this incident occurred after his literary career had 
begun is evidenced by the fact that he took along to court 
all the workmen of the theater, with whom he had become 
acquainted when he had been exhibiting previously at 
Athens.?® 

Anaxandrides the comic poet was a foreigner, a Rho- 
dian from Camirus according to Chameleon of Heraclea,”® 
a Colophonian according to others.?’ He exhibited his 
plays at Athens and won ten victories in all,?* seven at 
the Dionysia and three at the Lenaea.?®? The Marmor 
Parium records a victory of Anaxandrides in 377/6 
cfd Sg 

Theodectas, who lived about 390-350 B.C.,** was a 
native of Phaselis in Pamphylia.*? He passed the greater - 


20 Argum. Eur. Hippol. 

21 Schol. Aristoph. Pax 835; Suid. s. v. ᾿Αθήναιος. 

22 Athen. ix. 876a; iv. 1786; Suid. s. v. ᾿Αχαιός. 

28 Aristot. Poet. 14480 12; Athen. ix. 406e; xv. 6986; Suid. 8.0. 
‘Hy toy. 

24 Athen. xv. 698c. 

25 Athen. ix. 407). 

26 Athen. ix. 874a. Cf. Suid. 8. v. ᾿Αναξανδρίδης. 

27 Suid. loc. cit. 

28 Suid. loc. cit.; Wilhelm, op. cit., 126. 

29 IG, II, 977. 

30 IG, KIV, 1098; II, 9716; AJPh, XXVIII (1907), 182. 

31 Capps. AJPh, XXI (1900), 40 f. 

32 Suid. 8. v. Θεοδέχτης ; Steph. Byz. 8. v. Φασηλίς ; Plut. Alea. 
17; Athen. x. 45le, 454d. 


POETS OF FOREIGN NATIONALITY AT ATTIC FESTIVALS 105 


part of his life at Athens and was buried there.** Ste- 
phanus of Byzantium™ has preserved the epitaph of four 
verses which was carved on his tomb. Theodectas there 
bears the ethnicon Φασηλίτης. δ His son also was a citi- 
zen of Phaselis.** Theodectas brought out plays at 
Athens. . In thirteen contests he carried off the highest 
honor eight times,**? and the didascalic list gives him 
seven victories at the City Dionysia.** 

Apollodorus, a tragic poet of the second half of the 
fourth century, was a native of Tarsus.*® He won five 
victories at the Lenaea.*® 

Achaeus, a tragic poet, was a native of Syracuse.*! He 
won a Lenaean victory about 335 or 330 B. C.* 

Phanostratus, the son of Heraclides, came from Hali- 
carnassus.*®? He won the tragic prize at the Lenaea in 
307/6 B.C.* In the same inscription which records 
this victory Phanostratus is called ‘A\:xapvaccede.*® 

Posidippus came from Cassandreia in Macedonia.** He 
began to exhibit in the third year after the death of Me- 
nander.*? The list of comic poets who won at the = 
Dionysia credits him with four victories.* 

Diphilus was a native of Sinope and is so called on his 
tombstone.*® He brought out plays at Athens and won 
three victories.” 


83 Paus. i. 37. 4. 

84 Loe. cit. 

35 Cf. [Plut.] Vitae X Orat. 837c. 

36 Suid. loc. cit. 

87 Steph. Byz. loc. cit. 

88 IG, II, 9776. 

39 Suid. 8. v. ᾿Απολλόδωρος. 

40 Reisch, WSt, XXXIV (1912), 339. 
‘41 Suid. s. υ.᾿Αχαιός. 

42 Reisch. op. cit., 340. 

43 BCH, II (1878), 394. 

44 Wilhelm, op. cit., 210. 

45 IG, II, 1289. 

46 Suid. s. v. Ilocetdimnog; Eudocia Viol. 859; Steph. Byz. 8. v. 

Ἰζασάνδρεια. 

47 Suid. loc. cit. 

48 IG, II, 977h; Wilhelm. op. cit., 177 f. 
49 See p. 77. 

50 IG, II, 977g. 


106 POETS OF FOREIGN NATIONALITY AT ATTIC FESTIVALS 


Diodorus, the brother of Diphilus, bears the Athenian 
deme-name Σμαχίδης upon his tombstone.®* He con- 
tended at the Lenaea in 288 B.C.°? However, in two 
Delian inscriptions of the years 286 and 282 B.C. he is 
called Σινωπεύς.5. We should conclude from these facts 
that he did not receive Athenian citizenship until after 
his appearance at Delos in 282 B.C. and that he was, 
therefore, a foreigner when he exhibited at Athens in 
288 B.C. But considerations of a political character 
weaken this conclusion. In 314 B.C. the Delians freed 
themselves from the control of Athens. They conducted 
their own affairs, including the administration of the 
temple of Apollo. All contracts made by the Amphicty- 
ons with Athenian citizens were canceled and Athenian 
citizens were probably expelled altogether.* Under 
these circumstances Diodorus would not have advertised 
his Athenian citizenship, even if he had already re- 
ceived it. 

Phoenicides was a Megarian.** He exhibited at Athens 
and ridiculed the league of Antigonus and Pyrrhus.** In 
287/6 B.C. he won fourth prize at the Lenaea with his 
Poet,®*’ and two victories are assigned to him at the City 
Dionysia.°® 

Lynceus came from Samos.*® We can be certain of his 
presence at Athens for he describes banquets which he 
attended there, one given by a certain Lamia to King 
Demetrius, another by Antigonus when he celebrated the 
Aphrodisian festival at Athens, and a third by 
Ptolemy.*: He also ridicules Attic banquets in his Cen- 


51 See p. 72. 

52 1G, Il, 972. 

53 BCH, VII (18838), 105. 

54 Ferguson, Hellen. Ath., 50 f. 

55 Hesych. s. v. δύνασαι σιωπᾶν. 

56 Ibid. 

57 IG, Il, 972. 

58 JIG, Ul, 977h; Wilhelm, op. cit., 52, 118. 
59 Athen. vi. 248d; x. 434d. 

60 Tarn, Antigonos Gonatas, 248, n. 94. 
61 Athen. iv. 128a. 


POETS OF FOREIGN NATIONALITY AT ATTIC FESTIVALS 107 


taur.°? Eudocia® records the fact that he was victorious 
in the dramatic contests. 

Sosiphanes came from Syracuse to Athens, where he 
was victorious seven times.” 

Euphantes was an Olynthian and a teacher of King 
Antigonus. His tragedies were well received at the 
Athenian contests.© | 

To sum up the evidence so far submitted. It is possi- 
ble, but not probable, that all the above-mentioned foreign 
poets received Athenian citizenship. And even if they 
did receive it for service in connection with one of the 
festivals, the grant would not have been made before 
they brought out their plays, because that would have 
contradicted the principle that the grant should be based 
upon past service. Again, Diphilus and Theodectas ap- 
pear to have spent the greater part of their lives at 
Athens and each bears a foreign ethnicon upon his tomb- 
stone. And yet each, “if he resided permanently in 
Athens and had received the citizenship, would call him- 
self by preference an Athenian.”® Lastly, granting that 
- citizenship was a necessary qualification for the produc- 
tion of plays at Athens, it is scarcely conceivable that 
Phanostratus would be called ᾿Αλιχαρνασσεύς in a document 
recording a victory which was made possible only by the 
fact that he was then ᾿Αθηναῖος. 

Although these considerations furnish strong evidence, 
it is not sufficient unless it can be supported by a conclu- 
sive instance. Such we find in Dionysius, king of Sicily. 
Dionysius was made an Athenian in 368 B.C. In 367 
B. C. he won the first prize in tragedy.** This victory oc- 
curred after he had received Athenian citizenship. But 


62 Athen. iv. 131f. 

63 Viol. 2538. 

64 Suid. 5. v. Σωσιφάνης. 

65 Diog. Laert. ii. 10; Tarn, op. cit., 25. 
66 Capps, op. cit., 47, n. 2. 

67 IG, II’, 1038. Seep. 42. 

68 Diodor. xv. 74. 1; Tzet. Chil. 178-81. 


108 POETS OF FOREIGN NATIONALITY AT ATTIC FESTIVALS 


Dionysius brought out many plays at Athens, once taking 
second place, at another time third: 


οὗτος 6 Διονύσιος πολλὰς μὲν τραγῳδίας 

ἐν ταῖς ᾿Αθήναις ἀναγνούς, δεύτερος, τρίτος ἦλθεν 
εἰς λύτρα δὲ τοῦ “Εχτορος καλούμενόν τι δρᾶμα 
ἀναγνωσθὲν ἐνίχησε πάντας ἐν ταῖς ᾿Αθήναις. 


Now since Dionysius died in 367 B. C., the year in which 
he was victorious, all his other plays must have been 
brought out before that date. Taking into consideration 
only the two appearances on which he won second and 
third prizes we get 369 B.C. as the latest possible date 
for Dionysius’ first appearance. Since the decree which 
grants Dionysius citizenship is dated in the tenth prytany 
of the year 369/8 B. C., i. e., after the Dionysia, we have a 
record of at least two contests in which he participated 
prior to his enfranchisement. If any qualification of citi- 
zenship had existed, the Athenians certainly would have 
met it by making Dionysius an Athenian when he first ex- 
pressed a desire to exhibit plays at Athens, for they hon- 
ored him at various times and had good reasons for doing 
so.*° This conclusive case, together with the preceding evi- 
dence, proves that during the fifth, fourth, and third cen- 
turies B. C. foreign poets were permitted to compete at 
the Dionysiac festivals in Athens. 


69 Tzet. loc. cit. 
70 IG, Il’, 18. 


CONCLUSION 


It has been shown that the law of ἀνδραγαθία was al- 
ready in operation in 519 B. C.; that it was the basis for 
grants of citizenship from that date to 100 B. C. at least; 
and that the Solonian law concerning exiles and perma- 
nent settlers was not applied in the period during which 
the law of ἀνδραγαθία was in force. Three possible rea- 
sons have been suggested for which literary men could 
receive citizenship under the law of ἀνδραγαθία : for public 
service in the ordinary sense; for public service in con- 
nection with state festivals; or, by a loose interpretation 
of the law, for eminence in their profession. It has been 
shown that the purpose of the state in granting citizen- 
ship was self-interested, i. e., to secure the services of 
foreigners to the state. The spirit of the law was lost 
and laxity in the application of the rule followed. The 
consequent increased frequency of grants and corrupt 
practices depreciated the value of the grant. Grants of 
citizenship failed as a means of securing the continued 
loyalty of new citizens, and this was largely due to the 
fact that in many cases citizenship was only nominal. 
Lastly, it has been proved conclusively that poets of for- 
eign nationality were permitted to compete at the Diony- 
siac festivals in Athens. 


109 


APPENDIX 
LIST OF NATURALIZED ATHENIANS 


After the name of each naturalized Athenian in the 
following list will be found, wherever possible, his 
father’s name, ethnicon, deme-name, the date of the 
grant, references bearing on the fact of the grant, and 
page references to discussion of the case in the text. Be- 
sides giving the names of foreigners who certainly re- 
ceived citizenship, this list includes also the names of for- 
eigners whose Athenian citizenship has been assumed 
incorrectly (marked *), or whose naturalization, while 
not certain, is either possible or probable (marked 7). 


Oe . 16,113, 10 (401/0 B.C.). See pp. 18 ff. 
᾿Αγαυὸς ᾿Αβυδηνός. Ca. 367 B.C. Dem. 23. 202. Kirch- — 
ner, No. 108. 


᾿Αθηνογίτων. IG, 115, 10 (401/0 B.C.). See pp. 18 ff. 


Αἴσχρων Προξένουι IG, 115, 652 (288/7 B.C.). Tarn, 
Antigonos Gonatas, 418 ff. Kirchner, No. 396. 
See p. 58. 


Αἴσχρων ΠΙροξένουι IG, 11’, 845 (229-200 B.C.). Prob- 
ably a grandson of the preceding. 


Αἴχμων Εἰὐέλθοντος Παταρεύς. IG, 1125, 988 (150-129 
B.C.). Wilhelm, MAJ, XXXIX (1914), 805. 


᾿Αλέξανδρος Φιλίππου Μαχεδών. Ca. 338 B.C. Scholl. 
Aristid. Panath. 178, 16. See p. 51. 


᾿Αλέξανδρος Μυλλέου or Μυλλένα Μαχεδὼν ἐγ Bepotag. IG, 
112, 710 (288-280 or 267-262 B.C.). Johnson, 
CPh, IX (1914), 483. Wilhelm, WSt, XXXIV 
(1912), 427. Kirchner, No. 526. 


᾿Αλέξανδρος Καλλιστράτου Θετταλός. IG, 115, 850 (ca. 200 
B.C.). Wilhelm, MAI, XXXIX (1914), 298. . 
Kirchner, No. 525. See p. 61. 


110 


LIST OF NATURALIZED ATHENIANS 111 


+ Αλεξις Θούριος (2) ΚΚηφισιεύς (2). 876-270 B.C. Suid. 
s.v. Άλεξις. Kirchner, No. 549. See p. 75. 


᾿Αλχαῖος Ἡραίου Atviog. IG, 115, 495 (808,2 B.C.). 
Kirchner, No. 577. See p. 56. 


᾿Αλχέτας Θαρύππου Μολόσσιος. Ca. 815 B.C. Diodor. xv. 
36.5. IG, 113, 226 (8438/2 B.C.). 


᾿Αλχίμαχος ᾿Αγαθόχλου Maxedov. Ca. 8387/6 B.C. IG, 
115, 239 (337/6 B.C.). Harpoc. s.v. ᾿Αλκίμαχος. 
Kirchner, No. 626. 


᾿Αλχίμαχος ᾿Αλκιμάχου ᾿Απολλωνιάτης. 3833/2 B.C. IG, 
11’, 391 (321/0-319/8 B.C.). See pp. 92, 100. 


᾿Αλχμαίων Σίλλου Μεσσήνιος. Paus. ii. 18. 7. 


᾿Αμύντωρ Δημητρίουι IG, II?, 405 (835/4-830/29 B.C.). 
Kirchner, No. 750. 


7 “Apoig Ar ...... ΓΑνδριος. After 3382/1 B.C. Suid. 
8. v. ἴΑμφις. IG, 115, 8347 (3832/1 B.C.). Kirch- 
ner, No. 785. See pp. 77, 84. 


᾿Αναξιχράτης Βυζάντιος. 405 B.C. Xen. Hell. ii. 2. 1; 
Be. 48. 


᾿Αναξίλαος Βυζάντιος. 405 B.C. Xen. Hell. ii. 2. 1; i. 
3. 18 f. 


᾿Ανάφλυστος Τροιζῆνος Τροιζήνιος ᾿Αναφλύστιος.  Paus. ii. 
30.9. Seep. 26. 


᾿Ανάχαρσις Γνούρου Σχύθης. Ca. 583 B.C. Luc. Scyth. 
5, ὃ. Diog. Laert. i. 101. 


᾿Αντήνωρ Ξενάρου Μιλήσιος. IG, 11’, 472+169 (306/5 
B.C.). Wilhelm, ΜΑΙ, XXXIX (1914), 285 ff. 
Euseb. i. 206. Kirchner, No. 970. 


᾿Αντίγονος Φιλίππου Maxedav. Ca. 3807/6 B.C. Keil, HZ, 
- LIT (1902), 485. Diodor. xx. 46. Kirchner, No. 
1012a. . 


᾿Αντίμαχος Χῖος. Before JG, II?, 40 (ca. 383/2 Β. C.). 
IG, Il, 791. Wilhelm, WSt, XXXIV (1912), 416 ff. 


112 LIST OF NATURALIZED ATHENIANS 


᾿Αντίοχος IV ᾿Αντιόχου III Σύριος. Ca. 176 B.C. Fergu- 
son, Hellen. Ath., 302. Kirchner, No. 1160. 


᾿Αντίπατρος Ἰόλλα Μαχεδών. Ca. 3387/6 B.C. Harpoc. 
s. v. ᾿Αντίπατρος. Justin ix. 4. 5. Kirchner, No. 
1180. 


᾿Αντιφάνης Στεφάνου Kravog, Duvovatos, ‘Podi0¢, or ἀπὸ Θετ- 
ταλίας ἐκ Λαρίσσης. 888/5-314/0 B.C. Suid. 8. v. . 
᾿Αντιφάνης. Anonym. De com., Kaibel, 9. Capps, 
AJPh, XXI (1900), 58. Kirchner, No. 1219. See 
p. 70. j 


᾿Αντώνιος, M. Roman triumvir. Ca. 39 B.C. Plut: 
Ant. 57, 38. App. v. 76. 


᾿Απολλόδωρος Μεγαρεύς. IG, I, 59 (410/09 B.C.). Ly- 
sias 138. 71; 7.4. See p. 34. 


᾿Απολλόδωρος Πασίωνος ᾿Αχχρνεύς. 890-870 B. C. [Dem.] 
59.2; 46.15. Dem. 86. 47; 45. 46, 78, 79. [6.1] . ᾿ 
58. 18. JIG, II, 1238. Kirchner, No. 1411. See | 
p. 41. | 


᾿Απολλόδωρος Καρύστιος. Generation after Menander. 
Suid. 8. vv. ᾿Απολλόδωρος, σπουδάζω, ἐγχωμβώσασθαι. 
Capps, AJPh, XXI (1900), 45 ff. Kirchner, No. 
1383. Seep. 71. 


᾿Απελλιχῶν Triog ἐξ Οἴου. Before 90 B. C. Strabo xiii. 54. 
Posidon. apud Athen. v. 214d. IG, II, 1049. 
Kirchner, No. 1343. 


᾿Απολλωνίδης Ὀλύνθιος. Ca. 349 B.C. Dem. 9. 56, 66. 
[Dem.] 59.91. Kirchner, No. 1504. Deprived of 
citizenship by court. See p. 65. 


᾿Απολλωνίδης Χάροπος Πειραιεύςς Before IG, 115, 492 
(8087,,2 B.C.). 


᾿Απολλώνιος Λεύχονος Βοσπόρις. Before 355/4 B.C. 
Dem. 20. 80. 


᾿Αριαράθης V ᾿Αριαράθου IV Καππάδοχος Συπαλήττιος. Ca. 
178 B.C. IG, II, 1406. Ferguson, Klio, VIII 
(1908), 353. Kirchner, No. 1608. : 


LIST OF NATURALIZED ATHENIANS 113 


᾿Αριαράθης ᾿Αριαράθου V Καππάδοχος Συπαλήττιος (2). Ca. 
1827Χ1 B.C. Kirchner, ΖΝ, XXI (1898), 84 ff, . 
92 f. Ferguson CPh, II (1907), 401-5. Diirr- 
bach, BCH, XXIX (1905), 227. Kirchner, No. 
1608. 


᾿Αριαράθης ᾿Αττάλου II (?) ΚΚαππάδοχος Συκαλήττιος (7). Ca. 
128/7 B.C. Sundwall, Klio, VII (1907), 454 f. 


Ferguson, Klio, VIII (1908), 353-55. Sundwall s.v. 
᾿Αριαράθης. 


᾿Αριαράθης ᾿Αριοβαρζάνου I Καππάδοχος Συπαλήττιος. Ca. 
80 B.C. IG, II?, 1039. Ferguson, Klio, VIII 
(1908), 353. 


᾿Αριοβαρζάνης. Satrap of Phrygia. Ca. 368/7 B.C. 
Dem. 23. 141, 202. Kirchner, No. 1621. 


᾿Αριοβαρζάνης IL ᾿Αριοβαρζάνου I Kamnadoxog Συπαλήττιος. 
Ca. 80 B.C. IG, 115, 1039. Ferguson, Klio, VIII 
(1908), 353. Kirchner, No. 1621a. 


᾿Αρίσταχος Ἡραχλείδου Ταραντῖνος (?). IG, 11’, 979 (168- 
129 B.C.). Wilhelm, WSt, XXXIV (1912), 424 ff. 
See p. 62, n. 208. 


᾿Αριστόδημος Metamovtivos. Before 346 B.C. Hypothe- 
sis II. 2 to Dem. 19. Aeschines 2. 15 ff. Schaefer, 
Dem. u. 8. Zeit?, I, 246. See pp. 76, 81. 


᾿Αριστόλας. IG, 115, 643 (299/8 B. C.). 


᾿Αριστόνικος ᾿Αριστομήδου Καρύστιος. IG, 115, 385 (319/8 
B.C.). Athen. i. 19α. Suid. 8. vv. ὄρχησις, χορείαν. 
Kirchner, No. 2033a. See pp. 55, 63, n. 211, 85. 

᾿Αρίστων Βυζάντιος. 405 B.C. Xen. Hell. ii. 2. 1; 1. 3. 18. 


"Aomahog Μαχάτα Maxetov. Before 325/4 B.C. Athen. 
xiii. 586d, 596b. Kirchner, No. 2251. See p. 52. 
᾿Αρτεμίδωρος ᾿Απολλοδώρου. IG, IT’, 662, 668 (288/7 
B.C.). Johnson, CPh, IX (1914), 430. See p. 58. 


᾿Αρύββας ᾿Αλχέτου Μολόσσιος. Before IG, 11’, 226 (3438/2 
B.C.). See p. 100, η. 47. 


114 . LIST OF NATURALIZED ATHENIANS 


᾿Αρχέδημος Θηραῖος Χολλείδης. 426 B.C. IG, I, 428- 
427. Hiller von Gaertringen, Die archaische Kul- 
tur der Insel Thera, 33. Kirchner, No. 2328. 


"Apyimmog (7) Θάσιος. IG, 11’, 25 (890/89-887/6 B.C.). 
See Kirchner, No. 2564. Seep. 41. © 


"Ἄρχι Θάσιος (?). Before IG, 112, 336a (834/38 
B.C.). Wilhelm, MAI, XXXIX (1914), 269. See 
Kirchner, No. 2564. Probably either identical 
with or the son of the preceding. 


Ἄρχιππος ΓΑρχι Θάσιος (72). IG, 113, 336a (884,28 
B.C.). Wilhelm, MAI, XXXIX (1914), 269. 
See Kirchner, No. 2564. Renewal of grant to his 
father. 


"Ασανδρος ᾿Αγάθωνος Maxedov. IG, 112, 450 (3814/3 B.C.). 
Wilhelm, MAI, XXXIX (1914), 262. 


᾿Αστυχράτης Δελφός. IG, 113, 109 (3863/2 B.C.). Kirch- 
ner, No. 2654. See p. 48. 


ἴΛτταλος 1 ᾿Αττάλου Ilepyaunves. Ca. 200 B.C. Polyb. 
xvi. 25. Livy xxxi. 47. 


"Artahog II ᾿Αττάλου I Περγαμιηνὸς Συπαλήττιος. Ca. 178 
B. C. IG, Il, 1406. Ferguson, Klio, VIII (1908), 
353. Kirchner, No. 2692. 


Atticus, T. Pomponius. 85-65 B.C. Cor. Nep. Ait. 
8. Cic. Ad Att.i. 16.4. He refused the grant. 

᾿Αττινᾶς Ἡραχλείδου Κυμαῖος (2) Φλυεύς. IG, II, 1008, 1. 
126 (118/7 B.C.); II, 868. JIGS, I, 417 (100-75 
B.C.). Kirchner, No. 2693. Ancestor received 
citizenship. 


Αὐδωλέων Πατράου Παιών. IG, 11’, 654 (287/6 B.C.). 
Johnson, CPh, IX (1914), 277. Kirchner, No. 
2696. See p. 59. 


Βενδιφάνης. IG, 115, 10 (401/0 B.C.). Sundwall s. v. 
Βενδιφάνης. See pp. 18 ff. 


> eee 
ee | eee eo 


ee 


LIST OF NATURALIZED ATHENIANS 115 


Βιάνωρ Θρᾷξ. 359-856 B.C. Dem. 28. 12. Kirchner, 
No. 2850. 


Βίθυς Κλέωνος Λυσιμαχεύς. IG, 113, 808 (ca. 3038/2 B. C.). 
Johnson, CPh, IX (1914), 488. Kirchner, No. 
2851. 


Βρύαξις. Ca. 350 B.C. JIG, II, 5.138056. Clem. Alex. 
Protr. iv. 48. Robert, Pauly-Wiss., III, 1, 916, s. υ. 
Bryaxis. Kirchner, No. 2930. 


Γλαυκίας. IG, 112, 10 (401/0 B.C.). Sundwall 8. v. 
Γλαυκίας. See pp. 18 ff. 


Δημήτριος. IG, 115, 10 (401/0 B.C.) Sundwall 8. v. 
Δημήτριος. See pp. 18 ff. 


Δημήτριος ᾿Αντιγόνου Μαχεδών. Ca. 307/6 B.C. Keil, 
HZ, 111 (1902), 485. Diodor. xx. 46. Plut. De- 
metr. 10. Kirchner, No. 346la. 


Δίης Διέους Τύριος. Ca. 110 B.C. BCH, XV (1891), 
255 ff.; XXIX (1905), 229 ff. Ferguson, Klio, 
VII (1907), 228. Kirchner, No. 3768. Sundwall 
8. v. Aine. 


Δικαίαρχος Φιλωνίδου Aaodixede. Before IG, 11’, 1236 
(200-150 B. C.). 


Διογένης Μαχεδών. Before 235 B.C. IG, II, 1886. 
Ferguson, Hellen. Ath., 201. 


Διόδωρος Δίωνος Σινωπεὺς Unypaytdne. Possibly after 282 
B.C. IG, II, 3348. Auctor Lex. Hermann., 324. 
Kirchner, No. 3959. See pp. 72, 106. 


Διοχλῆς Φλιάσιος 500-400 B.C. Suid. 8. v. Διοχλῆς. 
Kirchner, No. 3985. See p. 75. 


Διομήδης ᾿Αθηνοδώρουρ Περγαμηνός. Before 106 B.C. 
MAI, XIX (1894), 97. Ἐφ. "Apy. (1883), 27. 
O’Connor, Chapters in the History of Actors and 
Acting in Ancient Greece, p. 72 and p. 92, No. 145. 
Kirchner, No. 4071. See p. 73. 


116 LIST OF NATURALIZED ATHENIANS 


* Διονύσιος. IG, 115,10 (401/0 B.C.). See pp. 18 ff. 


Διονύσιος I ‘Eppoxpitovg Συραχόσιος. IG, 113, 103 (3869/8 
B.C.). See Kirchner, No. 4269. See pp. 42, 70, 
107. 


Διονύσιος IIT Διονυσίου I Συραχόσιος. IG, II?, 108 (869,8 
B.C.). See Kirchner, No. 4269. See p. 42. 


Δίφιλος Δίωνος Σινωπεύς. Ca. 300 B.C. IG, II, 3348. 
Auctor Lex. Hermann., 324. See pp. 77, 79, 105. 


* "Eyepotg. IG, 11’, 10 (401/0 B.C.). Sundwall 8. υ. 
"Eyeoots. See pp. 18 ff. 


* Ἐμπορίων. IG, II?, 10 (401/0 B.C.). Sundwall 8. υ. 
᾿Ἐμπορίων. See pp. 18 ff. 


"Evdorog. 525-500 B.C. IG, I, 477. Paus. i. 26. 4. 
Kirchner, No. 4706. 


Ἔπαμείνων. See pp. 18 ff. 


+ ’Exavstvwv Κεῖος (Καρθαιςεύς). 16, 113, 978 (ca. 180 B. C.). 
Wilhelm, MAI, XXXIX (1914), 307 ff. 


’Extyévng. Ca. 825 B.C. Din. 1.48. Kirchner, No. 
A782. 


’Exovons Μήλιος Κυθήῤῥιος. 416-404 B.C. IG, XII, 
1187. Thuc. v. 116. Kirchner, No. 5019. 


Ἑρμόκριτος Διονυσίου I Συρακόσιος IG, 115, 108 (3869/8 
B.C.). See Kirchner, No. 4269. See p. 42. 


Εὐαγόρας Σαλαμίνιος. 410-405 B.C. JIG, I, 64+Suppl. 
116w. Wilhelm, BPhW, XXII (1902), 1100; ΜΑΙ, 
XXXIX (1914), 290. Isoc. 9. 54. Ep. Phi. 10. 
Kirchner, No. 5235b. See pp. 35, 93. 


* Εὔαθλος. IG, II*, 10 (401/0 B.C.). See pp. 18 ff. 
Εὐδέρχης. Ca. 8357/6 B.C. Dem. 28. 208. See p. 46. 


Einvwe Εἰὐηπίου ᾿Αργεῖος. IG, 115, 374 (318-307 B.C.). 
Johnson, CPh, IX (1914), 425. See p. 55. 


παμείνων. IG, II?, 10 (401/0 B.C.). Sundwall 8. v. 


1 
4 
‘ 
δ 


ie nk Sel " 


ee we | 


SES oe ee eer 


LIST OF NATURALIZED ATHENIANS 117 


Εὐχλῆς Φιλοκλέους (?) Τρινεμειεύς. After 403 B.C. IG, 
II?, 145 (1st part ca. 403/2 B. C., 2nd part 368-353 
B.C.). 16, II*?, 678 (276/5 B.C.). IG, II?, 972 
(ca. 140 B.C.). IG, 113, 848 (ca. 209/8 B.C.). 
Kirchner, No. 5732. See p. 39. 


Εὐχλῆς. IG, II?, 387 (819,8 B.C.). 


Εὐχολίων. IG, 112, 10 (401/0 B.C.). Sundwall s. υ. 
Εὐχολίων. See pp. 18 ff. 


Εὔμαχος Σάμιος. IG, II?, 1 (405/4B.C.). See p. 37. 
Εὔπολις. IG, 112, 486 (8304/3 B.C.). 


Εὐρυσάχης Αἴαντος Σαλαμίνιος Μελιτεύς. Plut. Sol. 10. 
Paus. i. 35.2. See p. 26. | 


Εὐφορίων. IG, 115, 10 (401/0 B.C.). Sundwall 8. v. 
Εὐφορίων. See pp. 18 ff. 


Εὔφρων ᾿Αδέα Σιχυώνιος. IG, 1132, 448 (3823/2 B.C.). 
Kirchner, No. 6126. See pp. 54, 63, 99. 


Ἡγησίας. IG, II’, 10 (401/0 B.C.). Sundwall 8. v. 
Ἡγησίας. See pp. 18 ff. 


Ζωίλος.ς IG, II?, 10 (401/0 B.C.). Sundwall s. v. 
Ζωΐλος. See pp. 18 ff. 


Ἡδύλος Σάμιος. 300-200 B. C. Athen. vii. 297a. Kirch- 
ner, No. 6388. See p. 77. 


Ἡλιόδωρος Διέους Τύριος. Ca. 110 B.C. BCH, XV 
(1891), 255 ff.; XXIX (1905), 229 ff. Ferguson, 
Klio, VII (1907), 228. Sundwall 8. v. Ἡλιόδωρος. 
Kirchner, No. 6407. 


ἩΗραχλείδης Κλαζομένιος 403-891 B.C. Kohler, Her- 
mes, XXVII (1892), 76. Wilamowitz, Aristot. 
u. Athen, I, 188, n. 4. JIG, II?, 8 (ea. 403-395 
B. C.). Kirchner, No. 6489. See Ὁ. 38. 


Ἡραχλείδης Atviog. Ca. 360 B.C. Dem. 23.119. Kirch- 
~ ner, No. 6488. See pp. 44, 64, 91. 


Ἡραχλείδης (2). IG, 115, 394 (321/0-319/8 B.C.). 


118 LIST OF NATURALIZED ATHENIANS 


Ἡράχλειτος Δίωνος ᾿Αργεῖος. 272-269 B.C. SGDI, 2568, 
1. 89 (272 B.C.) ; 2566, 1. 51 (269 B.C.). Kirch- 
ner, No. 6492. See p. 72. 


WHadtemed Bs. acoso pees χηνός. IG, 11, 646 (295,4 
B.C.). Kirchner, No. 6532. See p. 57. 


Θαρρύπας Μολόσσιοςς Granted citizenship during the 
Peloponnesian war. Justin xvii. 3. 9-18. Plut. 
Pyrrh. 1. IG, 113, 226 (3438/2 B.C.). 


Θρασύβουλος Καλυδώνιος. IG, I, 59 (410/09 B.C.). Ly- 
sias 18. 71. Kirchner, No. 7311. See pp. 16 ff., 34. 


Θράσυλλος Ἡραγόρου Σάμιος ἸΚηφισιεύς. IG, 11, 5. 21756 
(uncertain date). Kirchner, No. 7344. 


Ἰχέσιος Μητροδώρου Ἐφέσιος. IG, 115, 922 (200-168 
B.C.). Wilhelm, ’Eo. ’Apy. (1912), 248; ΜΑΙ, 
XXXIX (1914), 304. See p. 62, n. 208. 


Ἵππαρχος Θάσιος. IG, 115, 25 (390/89-387/6 B.C.). 
Kirchner, No. 7602. See p. 41. 


Ἱπποχράτης Ἡραγόρου Σάμιος Κηφισιεύς. IG, II, 5. 21750 | 
(uncertain date). Kirchner, No. 7636. 


* Καλλίας. IG, 112, 10 (401/0 B.C.). Sundwall s. v. 
Καλλίας. See pp. 18 fi. ; 


Καλλίας Μνησάρχου Χαλχιδεύς. 843/2-340 B.C. Aes- 
chines 3. 85. Din. 1.44. Hyper. 5. 20. Schaefer, 
Dem. u. 8. Zeit?, Il, 423. Kirchner, No. 7898. 
See pp. 49, 94. 


Καπίτων, Koivtog Πομπήϊος, Kotvtov Ilepyaunvog. IG, III, 
769. See p. 73. 


Καρνεάδης πιχώμου ἣ Φιλοχώμου Κυρηναῖος ᾿Αζηνιεύς. 180- 
175 B.C. Diog. Laert. iv. 62. IG, II, 1406 (178- 
175 B.C.). Ferguson, Klio, VIII (1908), 352. 
Kirchner, No. 8257. See pp. 73, 86. 


Καρυστίων. 440 B.C. Schol. Aristoph. Vesp. 283. 
Kirchner, No. 8259a. See p. 31. 


LIST OF NATURALIZED ATHENIANS 119 


Kapgivag ᾿Αχαρνάν. IG, 115, 2837 (3388/7 B.C.). Kirch- 
ner, No. 8261. See pp. 51, 64, 101. 


Κέχροψ Αἰγύπτιος. Suid. 8. v. Κέκροψ. 
Κερσοβλέπτης Κότου Θρᾷξ. Ca. 8357/6 B.C. Ep. Phil. 
8. See p. 46. 


Κηφισόδωρος. IG, 112, 10 (401/0 B.C.). Sundwall s. v. 
Κηφισόδωρος. See pp. 18 ff. 


Κλέαρχος Ποντιχός (Ἡραχλεώτης). Ca. 363/2 B.C. 
Suid. s. v. Κλέαρχος. Dem. 20. 84. Kirchner, No. 
8485. 


Κλέαρχος T E . IG, 115, 889 (ca. 190 B.C.). 
see p. 62, n. 208. 


Κόνων. Ca. 325 B.C. Din. 1.43. Kirchner, No. 8700. 


Κόρινθος (?). IG, I, Suppl. 46a (500-400 B.C.). Wil- 
helm, Mélanges Nicole, 597 ff. See p. 34. 


Κότυς Θρᾷξ. 382-365 B. C. Dem. 23. 118. See pp. 42, 95. 
Κύδων Βυζάντιος. 405 B.C. Xen. Hell. ii. 2. 1; i. 8. 18. 


Aso . IG, 1, 924 (200-168 B.C.). Wilhelm, 
MAI, XXXIX (1914), 304. 


Λεπτίνης. IG, 113, 10 (401/0 B.C.). Sundwall s. v. 
Λεπτίνης. See pp. 18 ff. 


Λεύχων Σατύρου Βοσπόρις. Before 355/4 B.C. Dem. 
20. 80. See p. 45. 


Δήναιος. 76, 115, 10 (401/0 B.C.). Sundwall 8. υ. 
Λήναιος. See pp. 18 ff. 


AIXII—. IG, 115, 10 (401/0 B.C.). See pp. 18 ff. 


Λυχοῦργος Βυζάντιος. 405 B.C. Xen. Hell. ii. 2. 1; i. 
8. 18. 


Λυχόφρων Θετταλός. Ca. 852 B.C. Aristot. Rhet. 1410a 
18. Probably deprived of citizenship by court. 


Μάγας. 186-146 B.C. Kirchner, No. 9650. 


Μέλανθος ᾿Ανδροπόμπου Μεσσήνιος. Paus. ii. 18.7. Strabo 
ix. 1.7. See p. 26. 


120 LIST OF NATURALIZED ATHENIANS | 


+ Μέλητος Θρᾷξ Πιτθεύς. Schol. Plato Apol. 18b. Diog. 
Laert ii. 40. Plato Huthyphr. 2b. Kirchner, No. 
9829. See p. 75. 


Μενεσθεὺς ᾿Απολλωνίου Μιλήσιος. IG, 1132, 982 (150-129 
B.C.). Wilhelm, WSt, XXXIV (1912), 428. 


Μένων Φαρσάλιος. Ca. 476 B.C. Dem. 28. 199. See 
p. 80. 


+ Metavévyg. Contemporary with Aristophanes. Suid. 
s. v. Metayévng. Kirchner, No. 10087. See p. 74. 


* MA—. 760, II?, 10 (401/0 B.C.). See pp. 18 ff. 


Neaiog. IG, 119, 553 (ca. 307 B.C.). Kirchner, No. 
10615. See p. 55. 


ἡ Νεοπτόλεμος Σχύριος.. Ca. 850 B.C. Schol. Dem. 5. 6. 
Schaefer, Dem. u. 8. Zeit?, I, 246. O’Connor, 
Chapters in the History of Actors and Acting in 
Ancient Greece, Ὁ. 72, and p. 119, No. 359. Kirch- 
ner, No. 10647. See pp. 76, 82. 


+ Νιχόμαχος ᾿Αλεξανδρεὺς τῆς Τρωιχῆς. Ca. 425 B.C. Suid. 
s. v. Νικόμαχος. Meineke, Hist. Crit., 496. Kirch- 
ner, No. 10932. See pp. 75, 79. 


Νίχων Νικοστράτου ᾿Αβυδηνός. IG, 115, 495-518 (3803/2 
B.C.). Johnson, AJA, XVII (1913), 506-19. : 
Wilhelm, MAI, XX XIX (1914), 271 ff. Seep. 56. | 


* "Ova.uns. IG, 115,10 (401/0 B.C.). See pp. 18 ff. 
* *Ov . IG, IP, 10 (401/0 B.C.). See pp. 18 ff. 


᾿ὈΟξύθεμις Ἱπποστράτου Λαρισαῖος. IG, 115, 558 (ca. 8303/2 
B.C.). Kirchner, No. 11484. See pp. 56, 89. 
Ὀρόντης. Satrap of Mysia. JG, 113, 207 (349/8 B.C.). 

Kirchner, No. 11490. See p. 48. 
Ὀφέλας Σειλήνου Maxedov. Before 308 B.C. Diodor. 
xx. 40. 


* Tlatd:xog. IG, 112, 10 (401/0 B.C.). Sundwall 8. v. 3 
Π.αίδιχος. See pp. 18 ff. 


χὰ EEE eee ae ee, 


χὰ 4 
Oi ch eed ΕΟ ΨΥ ΑΝ 


LIST OF NATURALIZED ATHENIANS 121 


Παιρισάδης I Λεύχονος Booxdptog. IG, 11’, 212 (3847/6 
B.C.). Dem. 20. 29 f. See p. 48. | 


Παλαίφατος Αἰγύπτιος. Suid. 8. v. Παλαίφατος. 


Πάμφιλος Χαιρεφίλου Παιανιεύς. Ca. 825 B.C. Din. 1. 
43. Athen. iii. 119f. Kirchner, No. 11555. See 
p. 52. : 


Πασίων ᾿Αχαρνεύς. 390-370 B.C. [Dem.] 59. 2; 46. 
15. Dem. 36. 47; 45. 85. JIG, II, 1238. Kirch- 
ner, No. 11672. See p. 41. 


Il αυσίμαχος Φιλοστράτου Περγαμηνός. IG, 112, 954 (168- 
159 B.C.). Wilhelm, MAI, XXXIX (1914), 
305 f. JG, II, 1386. Kirchner, Nos. 11737 and 
11788. See p. 62, n. 208. 


Πειθόλαος Θετταλός. Ca. 352 B.C. [Dem.] 59. 91. 
Aristot. Rhet. 1410a 17. Deprived of citizenship 
by court. Kirchner, No. 11762. See p. 65. 


Πεισιθείδης Πεισιθείδου Δήλιος. IG, 115, 222 (ca. 331 
B. C.). Johnson, CPh, IX (1914), 424. See p. 64. 


Περδίχχης Μαχεδών. Ca.479 B.C. Dem. 28. 200. See 
p. 29. 


Πιτυρεὺς Ἴωνος Ἐπιδαύριος.. Paus. ii. 26.2. See p. 26. 


Πολέμων Εϊηγέτου ᾿Ἰλιεύς, Σάμιος, or Σικυώνιος, 200-180 
B.C. Suid. s. v. Πολέμων. Athen. vi. 2844. See 
p. 738. . 


Πολύγνωτος ᾿Αγλαοφῶντος Θάσιος. 463-461 B.C. Harpoc. 
s. v. Πολύγνωτος. Suid, 8. v. Πολύγνωτος. See p. 31. 


ΠΠολυσθένης. Ca. 3638 B.C. Dem. 23. 202. 

Πολύστρατος. Ca. 390 B. C. Dem. 20. 84; 4. 24. Suid. 
s. v. ἸΠολύστρατος. Kirchner, No. 12070. See p. 40. 

Ποσῆς Σάμιος JG, II?, 1 (4038/2 B.C.). Seep. 38. 


Πτολεμαῖος Εὐεργέτης Πτολεμαίου Φιλαδέλφου Αἰγύπτιος. 
Ca. 224).8 B.C. Ferguson, Klio, VIII (1908), 
344, 


122 LIST OF NATURALIZED ATHENIANS 


Πύθων Aiviog. Ca. 360 B.C. Dem. 23. 119. Kirch- 
ner, No. 12479. See pp. 44, 64, 91, 94. 


Πύθων Δημέουι IG, 113, 712 (267-262 B.C.). Johnson, 
CPh, IX (1914), 488. Cf. Tarn, JHSt, XL (1920), 
143-59. Kirchner, No. 12466. 


II GA0¢ Χαριχλέους Αἰγινήτης Σουνιεύς. Ca. 318-315 B. Ὁ. 
Plut. Dem. 28. Luc. Necyom. 16. Kirchner, No. 
12526. See p. 71. 


Σάδοχος Σιτάλχου Θρᾷξ. 4381 B.C. Thuc. ii. 29. Kirch- 
ner, No. 12546. See pp. 32, 68, 94, 100. 


+ Σάτυρος 1 Σπαρτόχου Il Βοσπόριες. 407-887 B.C. IG, 
112, 212 (3847/6 B.C.). See p. 48. 


+ DOévvig Ἡροδώρου Ὀλύνθιος Διομειεῦὺς. After 348 B.C. 
Benndorf, ZOGy, XXVI (1875), 740-43. Kirch- 
ner, No. 12641. 


Σθόρυς Θάσιος. IG, 11, 17 (3894/3 B.C.). See p. 40. 


Σίμων Θρᾷξ. 359-856 B.C. Dem. 23. 12. Kirchner, 
No. 12709. 


Σιτάλχης. Before 340 B.C. Hither an unknown Sital- 
ces or confused with Cotys. 


Σόλων Στράτωνος Βαργυλιήτης. IG, Il’, 4964507 (8303/2 
B.C.). Wilhelm, MAI, XXXIX (1914), 274. See 
p. 57. 


Σπάρτοχος III Λεύχονος Βοσπόριος.ς IG, 11’, 212 (347/6 
B. C.). Dem. 20.29 f. Seep. 48. 


Σπάρτοχος IV Εὐμήλου Βοσπόριος. Before IG, II’, 653 
(287/6 B.C.). Johnson, CPh, IX (1914), 277. 
See p. 100. 


Στράβαξ. Ca. 390 B.C. Aristot. Rhet. 1399b 2. Dem. 
20. 84. Kirchner, No. 12911. See p. 40. 


Σιτρόμβιχος. IG, 1132, 666, 667 (280/79 B.C. or 282/1 
B.C.). Johnson, CPh, IX (1914), 277. Tarn, 
JHSt, XL (1920), 158. Kirchner, No. 13024. 
See p. 60. 


LIST OF NATURALIZED ATHENIANS 123 
Σφῆττος Τροιζῆνος Τροιζήνιος Σφήττιος. Paus. ii. 30. 9. 
See p. 26. 


Σωχράτης Σωχάριδος Ῥόδιος. Before 250 B.C. Kirch- 
ner, No. 13126. 


Σώνιχος. IG, 115, 387 (319/8 B.C.). 


Σωσίας. IG, 115, 10 (401/0 B.C.). Sundwall 8. v. 
Σωσίας. See pp. 18 ff. 


Σωσίθεος Συραχούσιος ἢ ᾿Αλεξανδρεὺς τῆς Τρωικῆς ᾿Αλεξαν- 
δρείας. Ca. 280 B.C. Suid. 5. v. Σωσίθεος. See 
ott. 


Σώστρατος. IG, II?, 643 (299/8 B.C.). 


Ταυροσθένης Μνησάρχου Χαλκιδεύς. 343/2-340 B.C. Aes- 
chines 8.85. Din. 1.44. Hyper. 5. 20. Schaefer, 
Dem. u. 8. Zett?, II, 428. Kirchner, No. 13485. 
See p. 49. 


Πελεσίας Τροζήνιος. IG, 112, 971 (140/389 B.C.). Wil- 
helm, MAI, XXXIX (1914), 314. 


Thons Θρᾷξ. Ca.357/6 B.C. Ep. Phil. 8. Seep. 46. 


Τίμαιος. IG, 112, 10 (401/0 B.C.). Sundwall 8. v. 
Τίμαιος. See pp. 18 ff. | 


Τιμόμαχος. IG, 112, 894 (821/0-319/8 B.C.). 


Τιμωνίδης Μαρωνίτης ἢ Μαραθήσιος ἣ Μαραθηνός. IG, 1, 
854 (229-200 B.C.). Wilhelm, WSt, XXXIV 
(1912), 424. Kirchner, No. 13859. 


πόξαρις Σχύθης. 594-583 B.C. Luc. Scyth. 1, 4. 
PaiirArkog Φωχεύς. Ca. 352 B.C. Dem. 28. 124. 


Φείδιππος Χαιρεφίλου Π᾿ αιανιεύς. Ca. 325 B.C. Din. 1. 48. 
Athen. iii. 119f. Kirchner, No. 14168. See p. 52. 


Φείδων Χαιρεφίλου Παιανιεύς. Ca. 325 B.C. Din. 1. 48. 
Athen. iii. 119f. Kirchner, No. 14184. See p. 52. 


124 LIST OF NATURALIZED ATHENIANS 


Φιλαῖος Αἴαντος Σαλαμίνιος Φιλαίδης. Plut. Sol. 10. Paus. 
i. 35.2. Seep. 26. 


Φιλέταιρος ᾿Αττάλου I Περγαμηνὸς Συπαλήττιὸός. Ca. 175/4 
B.C. IG, II’, 905 (ca. 115,74 B.C.). Ditt., 5.11.3, 
641, ἢ. 2. Kirchner, No. 14254, 


Φιλήμων Δάμωνος Συραχόσιος Διομειεύς. Before JG, II, 
1289 (8307/6 B.C.). JG, III, 948. Anonym. De 
com., Kaibel, 9. Kirchner, No. 14277. See p. 71. 


Φίλιππος ᾿Αμύντου Maxedov. Ca. 888 B.C. Plut. Dem. 
22. Din. 1.43. See p. 50. 


Φιλίσχος ᾿Αβυδηνός. Ca. 367 B.C. Dem. 23. 141, 202, 
Kirchner, No. 14430. See pp. 48, 95. 


Φιλωνίδης Aaodixede. Before IG, II?, 1286 (200-150 
Β. Ο.). 


Φιλωνίδης Φιλωνίδου Λαοδιχεύς. Before IG, 115, 1286 (200- 
150 B.C.). Son of the preceding. 


MA τ nis δὴς Ῥόδιος. IG, II?, 19 (894,8 B.C.). 


Φορμίων ᾿Αχαρνάν. Ca. 400 (3) B.C. IG, 115; 237 
(8338/7 B.C.). Kirchner, No. 14961. See p. 51. 


Φορμίων. 3861/0 B.C. [Dem.] 46. 13. Kirchner, 
No. 14951. See p. 48. 


Φορμίων ᾿Ακαρνάν. IG, 11’, 237 (3388/7 B.C.). See 
Kirchner, No. 14961. See pp. 51, 64, 101. 


Φρασιηρίδης ᾿Αναφλύστιος (7). Ca. 868 B.C. Dem. 28. 
202; 20. 84. [Dem.] 49. 43; 50. 41. Kirchner, 
No. 14976. 


* Φρύνιχος. IG, 115, 10 (401/0 B.C.). Sundwall 8. v. 
Φρύνιχος. See pp. 18 ff. 


Φωχῖνος Εὐάλχου Μεγαρεὺς Δημητριάδος. After 307 B.C. 
IGS, I, 1-7 (306-287 B.C.). JIG, 113, 766 (270/69 
B.C.). Johnson, CPh, IX (1914), 434. Kirch- 
ner, No. 15072. 


* 


* 


* 


% 


* 


LIST OF NATURALIZED ATHENIANS 125 
Χαιρέδημος. IG, 115, 10 (401/0 B.C.). Sundwall s. v. 
Χαιρέδημος. See pp. 18 ff. 


Χαιρέφιλος Παιανιεύς. Ca. 325 B.C. Din. 1. 48. Athen. 
111. 119. Kirchner, No. 15187. See p. 52. 


Χαρίδημος Φιλοξένου ᾿Ωρείτης ᾿Αχαρνεύς. Ca. 8357/6 B.C. 
Dem. 23. 28, 65, 141, 145, 151, 218. Aristot. 
Rhet. 18996 2f. JIG, II, Add. 741. Kirchner, No. 
15380. See pp. 46, 95. | 


Χρύσιππος ᾿Απολλωνίου Σολεύς. 260-208/4 B.C. Strabo 
xiv. 671. Plut. De Stoic. rep. 1034a. Kirchner, 
No. 15582. See p. 72. 


PONS «> ay): Σαλαμίνιος. IG, II’, 716 (400-300 B.C.). 


Ψάμμις. IG, 112, 10 (401/0 B.C.). Sundwall 8. v. 
Wouurg. See pp. 18 ff. 


Q——. 16, II’, 10 (401/0 B.C.). See pp. 18 ff. 


..ay—. IG, 112, 10 (401/0 B.C.). See pp. 18 ff. 


~..aoyog "Epetoredc. IG, 11’, 893 (ca. 188/7 B.C.). 
Wilhelm, MAI, XXXIX (1914), 295 ff. See p. 62, 
n, 208. 


..noimmog ᾿Απελλοῦ Αἰγινήτης. IG, 115, 981 (168-129 
B. C.). 


..wmxo—. IG, II?, 10 (401/0 B.C.). See pp. 18 ff. 
ee eee x—. IG, 113, 10 (401/0 B.C.). See pp. 18 ff. 


——+g Ἡραχλείδου Ταραντῖνος (?). IG, 115, 979 (168-129 
B.C.). Wilhelm, WSt, XXXIV (1912), 424 ff. 
See p. 62, n. 208. 


..vctag. IG, 115, 10 (401/0 B.C.). See pp. 18 fi. 
..ov. IG, 112, 10 (401/0 B.C.). See pp. 18 ff. 
...anog. IG, 113, 10 (401/0 B.C.). See pp. 18 ff. 


Se eka Ἐς , ᾿ἸΑγῆνος Ἐπιδάμνιος. IG, 11, 350 (8331/0 
B.C.). See p. 52. 


126 LIST OF NATURALIZED ATHENIANS 


Δημητρι---(2). IG, 113, 588 (ca. 334-831 B. C.). 
Johnson, CPh, IX (1914), 428. Wilhelm, MAI, 
XXXIX (1914), 269. 


Εὐαγόρου Σαλαμίνιοι. 16, 115, 716 (400-300 B. C.). 


weeces Ἡγελόχου ᾿Απολλωνιάτηςς IG, 112, 860 (3381/0 
B.C.). See p. 52. 


Pan Wiad Καλλιχλέους. IG, 115, 392 (321/0-319/8 B. C.). 


Μιθραξίδου ᾿Αριαραθεύς. 76, 115, 980 (168-129 
B.C.). 


Il atovog Μεσσήνιοι. Paus. ii. 18. 7. Toepffer, 
Attische Genealogie, 225 ff. See p. 26. 


"Avapro. Ca. 399 B.C. Andoc. 1.149. See pp. 
39;-.68, Ἢ, 214, ST Th 


᾿Αρχεσινεύς (?). IG, 115, 718 (800-250 B. C.). 


Γεφυραῖοι (Φοίνιχες). Her. v.57. Toepffer, At- 
tische Genealogie, 293 ff. See p. 26. 


Ἐφέσιος (2). IG, 115, 868 (229-200 B.C.). Wil- 
helm, MAI, XXXIX (1914), 310 ff. 


Θετταλοὶ Περιθοῖδαι. Time of Theseus. Suid. 
s. v. Περιθοῖδαι. Plut. Thes. 25. See p. 26. 


Θετταλοί. Ca. 399 B.C. Andoc. 1. 149. See 
pp. 39, 63, n. 211, 87 f. 


Μυτιληναῖος. Before IG, 115, 40 (ca. 383/2 
B.C.) ; Wilhelm, WSt, XXXIV (1912), 416 ff. 


Ὀλύνθιοι. After 348 B.C. Suid. s.v. Κάρανος. 


Πλαταιεῖς. 519 and 428/7 B.C. Thuc. iii. 55, 
63. [Dem.] 59.104. See pp. 29, 88, 62, 64. 


Πριηνεῖς. IG, 113, 566-+-unpub. fr. (307/6 B. C.). 
Wilhelm, MAI, XXXIX (1914), 281. 


Ῥόδιο. 200 B.C. Polyb. xvi. 26. Szanto, 
Griech. Biirgerr., 68 f., 79. See p. 62. 


100. 


Σάμιοι. IG, 11:,1 (406,4 B.C.). See pp. 36, — 


+ 


Τροζήνιος. 
971 (140/39 B.C.). 


LIST OF NATURALIZED ATHENIANS 127 


307-301 or 294/3 B.C. IG, 11, 
Wilhelm, MAI, XXXIX 


(1914), 314. 


Pol. 


εύς. IG, 113, 508 (318-300 B.C.). 


508/7 B.C. Aristot. Pol. iii. 12756 37; Ath. 
21. See pp. 66, 87. 


406 B.C. Diodor. xiii. 97. See pp. 36, 66, 88. 
IG, 115, 185 (400-353/2 B.C). 

IG, Il’, 578 (400-300 B.C.). 

IG, 115, 251 (352-336 B.C.). 

IG, 115, 282 (352-336 B. C.). 

IG, 113, 297 (352-336 B.C.). 

IG, 113, 301 (852-336 B.C.). 


IG, 113, 511 (850-331 B.C.). Johnson, CPh, 


(1914), 428. 


IG, 11’, 488 (332-300 B.C.). Johnson, CPh, 


(1914), 426. 


IG, 115, 393 (321/0-319/8 B.C.). 
IG, 113, 394 (321/0-319/8 B.C.). 
IG, 11’, 395 (321/0-319/8 B.C.). 
IG, Il’, 898 (ca. 320/19 B. C.). 
IG, Il’, 541 (318-302 B.C.). 

IG, 11’, 575 (318-300 B.C.). 

IG, 113, 576 (318-300 B.C.). 

IG, 115, 577 (318-300 B. C.). 

IG, 115, 519 (307-301 B.C.). 
IG, 115, 696 (ca. 306-303 B.C.). 


See p. 54. 


Johnson, 


CPh, IX (1914), 482. 


IG, 113, 719 (300-250 B.C.). See pp. 21 ff. 


128 LIST OF NATURALIZED ATHENIANS 


IX (1914), 433. See pp. 21 ff. 
1G, 11, 806 (ca. 230 B.C.). 


XXXIX (1914), 298-302. 


XXXIX (1914), 298. 


XXXIX (1914), 298. 


XXXIX (1914), 306 f. 


. 1G, IP, 720 (300-250 B.C.). 


IG, 115, 851 (229-223 B. C.). 


IG, 113, 845 (229-200 B. C.). 
IG, 113, 855 (229-200 B. C.). 


16,113, 856 (229-200 B. C.). 


IG, 113, 923 (200-168 B. C.). 
IG, II?, 925 (200-168 B. C.). 


+ See pp. 21 ff. 
. IG, 11, 804 (300-250 B.C.). Johnson, CPh, 
IX (1914), 438. 
. IG, 113, 805 (300-250 B.C.). Johnson, CPh, 
IX (1914), 438. 
IG, 113, 643 (299/78 B.C.). 
. IG, 11, 707 (ca. 295 B.C.). Johnson, CPh, 
IX (1914), 488, 
1G, 115, 648 (ca. 295/4 B.C.). 
. IG, 115, 570 (294-288, 279-269, or 256-232 
B.C.): Johnson, CPh, IX (1914), 428. Cf. Tarn, 
JHSt, XL (1920), 143-59. 
IG, 113, 721 (279-268 B.C.). Johnson, CPh, 
IX (1914), 433. Cf. Tarn, JHSt, XL (1920), 
143-59. | 
IG, 115, 717 (262-230 B.C.). Johnson, CPh, 
IX (1914), 433. See p. 61. 
+ . IG, 1, 734 (250/49 B.C.). Johnson, CPh, 
IX (1914), 488. Z 
yd . IG, 113, 706 (ca. 232 B.C.). Johnson, CPh, 


Wilhelm, MAI, 


Wilhelm, MAI, 


Wilhelm, MAI, 


Wilhelm, MAI, 


‘f 


i‘ eo a),  .ἐ...-,. 


ry 
A Υ͂ 
ΠΑ Oe ἀν: ee 
So, ἣ ra ee 
re ee ἡ ΤΡ. ὙΌΣ 


= x οἴ 06065 


rr 


529072 


IINIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY 


THIS BOOK IS DUE ON THE LAST DATE 
j STAMPED BELOW 


AN INITIAL FINE OF 25 CENTS 
WILL BE ASSESSED FOR FAILURE TO RETURN 
THIS BOOK ON THE DATE DUE. THE PENALTY 
WILL INCREASE TO 50 CENTS ON THE FOURTH 


DAY AND TO $1.00 ON THE SEVENTH DAY 
OVERDUE. 


JAN 9 1946 
- φΦἈΑΝ 10 1948. 


